By Dr. Wesley Kime
About a year ago Dr. Ervin Taylor, founding editor-publisher of Adventist Today, emeritus professor of Anthropology at UC Riverside, pioneer apostle of progressive Adventism, famous curator of scientific evidence for eonic Evolution, theistic or otherwise, came over here to proclaim rather formally that Dr. Pitman had undertaken a truly heroic crusade. Dr. Taylor recognized Dr. Pitman’s leading out against mainstream science by undertaking to provide, in the words of the citation, “solid modern scientific evidence to support the conclusions he has reached because of his religious beliefs,” notably a literal Genesis 1 Creation. Though heavy with cheery irony, with Pitman sounding more like Don Q flailing windmills than Daniel standing against Babylonians, as many of us saw him and blessed him for, and always will, Taylor’s encomium spotlighted the crusade.
That was a year ago. Another crusade has taken over these pages, warranting as formal a recognition as last year’s.
This crusade is not Dr. Pitman’s. Rather he is the butt of it, thrown smack into the den of lions. A flash mob, of good diversity, from all poles of this here big tent, has materialized from among the lecterns and from deep within our own pews.
Dr. Pitman, erstwhile defender of the faith, wielder of the Sword of Evidence “to support [as the citation says]…his religious beliefs,” is now denounced as the repudiator of religious belief. A heretic worse than Arius or Canright, perpetuator of a heresy worse than Sunday observance or dancing, plus he’s mean-spirited. An embarrassment to E.G. White and Ted Wilson, even.
Last year the very idea of using scientific evidence against Evolution or for a literal 6-day Creation was a violation of science itself, a perversion of science, junk science, a crime against science. A judge had said so. Science falsely so called. That was last year.
But now such employment of science, rather than just texts, in support of Creation is not just a crime against science but a sin against the Creator.
This is the thrust of this year’s crusade: Genesis 1 is to be accepted not from evidence but by faith. Science is, in the Latter Rain, to be as dreaded and eschewed as images of Baal by Israel of old. O turn ye! Turn ye!
Now hold it right there! Weren’t science and religion supposed to be irreconcilable? Yet here they are, both science and religion, ganging up on this guy just for using science.
From the pew is heard, “Though the whole world of science be for Creation, yet will I not hear those other voices.” From the lectern the cry, even more urgent (“HELL-O-O-O-O!”) and sans a nanogram of irony, “Though the whole world of science be against Creation, yet will I believe.”
The lecternists’ altar call, with synthesizer organ background, devolves solely (we trust there’s no hidden agenda) upon Creation being 100% unprovable and Evolution 100% proved, air tight, hermeneutically sealed. Dr. Taylor drops by ever so often to offer his Erv’s Odds. Last I saw, he (cheerily) grants like 1.48% of the data as not inconsistent with Genesis 1, but over here not a shredy-shred-shred-shred is granted or permitted.
And inasmuch as there’s not a shred of evidence, it is alleged, for Genesis 1, which we are stuck with, it follows logically and otherwise that we have no recourse but to proceed on faith only. If Pitman’s heroic crusade is powered by the likely existence of scientific evidence, high faith’s holy campaign hangs on the absolute nonexistence of it, and we’ll swing our sword at any little lizard of evidence for Creation that shows its head. If Dr. Pitman has vested interest in evidence, ours is in quashing it.
And furthermore Genesis 1 is to be reverenced not just despite the evidence being against it but because all the evidence is against it. Alas for your doctoral thesis, if thus structured. We’re all, all sides of us, relieved that Galileo wasn’t.
Hmmmm. In this campaign against Dr. Pitman, he is singled out as the epitome of the evil doctor. In Dr. Pitman’s behalf, in God’s behalf, I object. If St. Paul in his crusade could not gloat before the Lord, neither can S. Pitman. The case for evidence doesn’t hang on Dr. Pitman; it hangs, arguably (but elsewhere), on the very character of God, as Dr. Graham Maxwell (prof. of theology, deceased, LLU) taught. It hangs on science itself, as I was taught long before Sean was born, back in the days of Victorian legalism, at, of all places, LSU (nee LSC), by, of all people, my major biology professor, who shamelessly de-promoted Evolution in the context of evidence. Don’t recall he mentioned faith once. Faith was confined to religion class, as it should be. But that was before evidence had to be downgraded and faith updated.
I propose that the next crusade, heroic and holy, be to reunite faith with evidence as equals integral and integrated, like the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems, like frontal cortex and brain stem, like breathing in and breathing out, systole and diastole, the left and right ventricles, one balancing and empowering the other, like male and female, and what God hath joined together let no man put asunder.
A Proposal
Dear Friends
This morning I read your posts with delight. I have learned and am learning so much from you on matters of faith. No matter my agnostic point of view that has been of immense benefit to me.
But we all believe, to a smaller or larger degree, a bit differently don’t we?
I think that what Dr Kime has proposed and Dr. Pitman is trying to do is noble, insofar as the Adventist faith is concerned. But I think that Professor Kent’s and Erv Taylor’s take on what the weight of empirical evidence points to is accurate.I also think that Stephen Hawkings proposal that our universe may be merely a quantum burp out of nothing may be a deeply religious statement. I also think that all of religion(s) are man made, evolving social constructs (s) to help cope with and explain reality.
Now, with all this strange, unique, meld of ‘beliefs’ I might be able to form a new church: Scienagnology, or Empitmankinenolgy, or Kentaylorfaithology, or Exhawkingnitholgy. And If I had the charisma, commitment and time I might be able to attract followers – and tithes- to my enterprise.
So what you say, what be the point? That we all think differently and may indeed not be objective, unbiased readers ( no offense Bob, I include myself in the motley subjective gang!) So is Dr. Pitman cherry picking empirical data to support Genesis? Is Erv Taylor molding doctrine to evolution to progressively rationalize
Adventism? Does Prof Kent’s homage to faith above science defang or exalt faith? Is Stephen Hawkings attempting to avoid First Cause, by saying before the quantum burp that gave birth to our universe there was no Time for a First Cause? Making the universe out of nothing, now that all sounds vaguely familiar to me..hmmm. Grand Design indeed. Is agnostic Ken the unwitting, ultimate ‘Puck’, agent provocateur of some dark force or a small Kimeian shreddy, shred, shred of support for the golden weld for the marriage of Reality to God? All the above? None of the above? Some of the above?
Here is my proposal, for ‘all’ of us that think, at least a tad, differently. That for one week we treat each other with the same respect and love that Christ would, notwithstanding our many differences. Let’s truly see if we can find that grace together on this wonderful forum.
With love and respect, your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentReaders of EducateTruth(sic) postings need to keep in mind that it was Dr. Pitman who wrote: “[S]uch ‘mature’ magazines as Adventist Today or Spectrum . . . have matured beyond the childishness of the [SDA] Church organization.” Please remember that those words were not posted by anyone associated with Adventist Today or Spectrum. Rather they were posted by someone associated with EducateTruth(sic).
Ervin Taylor(Quote)
View CommentDr. Taylor, As a believer in theistic evolution, you are invited, on this website, to answer some of the questions that have been asked about this belief. As an “emeritus” professor, you should have both the experience and the time.
Holly Pham(Quote)
View Comment@Ervin Taylor:
I’m afraid you’re experiencing just a touch of senility my friend. Aside from yourself, I’m sure that my intended meaning is quite clear for most people reading this post…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentMore from Dr. Kime:
All evidence tells us that nervous systems, lungs, and heart will fail and return to the dust from which they were formed. Faith tells us that none of these need fail, and even if they do, they can be reconstructed once again, better than before. Faith has no equal.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentDear Wes
Dr. Kime, the personification of Sublime.
From the ether of quantum fluctuations, your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentAu, Contraire Monsieur professeur, it was no mockery of faith, but merely a statement that there is room in this discussion for both faith AND evidence, and also we should not demonize Dr. Pitman for presenting the evidence!
Perhaps you would see that if you re-read again what the good Doctor wrote?
Certainly within this body of believers there is room for both faith And evidence in this discussion, and as Dr. Kime suggests, we would do well to combine them both.
For any of us to attempt to cause needless division by distorting that point is in fact the real mockery here. It should be completely below any and all of us to engage in such tactics.
JohnB(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
Welcome, welcome back good friend Ken,
Good to see you again, here in the lions den,
Where skin is thin and chagrins never end.
So how’ve you been?
Welcome again to this sometimes venomous venue.
What’s your pleasure from our sometimes bilious menu?
A little faith with this personally proffered doggerel?
A dash of hot dogged defender dogma rigmarole?
I’d really rather debate, certainly greet, in meter and rhyme
With Ogden Nash my paradigm, not Milton or Dante sublime,
Any time, all the time, from the Maginot Line to dinner time.
Yours, with this loving evidence, Dual Crusader Kime.
Wesley Kime(Quote)
View CommentYou need a shovel or bulldozer to unearth your evidence, when faith can move mountains. And you and Dr. Kime insist they merit equal footing?
The apostles with Jesus in the boat responded with fear to the evidence they witnessed in the storm, and how did Jesus respond? “Oh ye of little faith.”
Evidence is important, yes; but it has no match in faith. Evidence won’t rescue us any more so than it saved Lucifer; faith can.
Let the faith-bashing continue so we can heap more praise on those who peddle evidence. That’s what this is all about.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
Faith can also tell us that Santa Claus exists… but that doesn’t mean it’s true. After all, as the old saying goes, “If wishes were horses beggars would ride.”
A kid was once asked by his Sabbath school teacher to define the word “faith”. He thought for a moment before saying, “Faith is a belief in those things you know just ain’t so.”
Must faith be nothing more than wishful thinking? – wishing desperately on a star that some miracle will happen?
Are we just fooling ourselves here? Is Christianity just a nice story to calm our fears about the future? Or, is there more to it than fanciful wishful thinking? Is there some real evidence to support the very bold statement that the Bible is something more than an moral fable? – that it’s real history and it’s description of a very bright future empirical reality for all who will accept the call of the Holy Spirit is just as certainly true?
Why should one believe the Bible, to the point of putting one’s life and prosperity in this life on the line, but doubt the existence of Santa Claus? How is faith in one superior to faith in the other as a means to lead someone who is actually intelligent and rational to make real risks and sacrifices?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentWesley Kime writes:
Informed Seventh-day Adventists are well aware that the world of science rejects a supernatural creation, yet the vast majority still believe. You should not mock their faith.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentA well known and oft quoted statement deserves to be heard yet again:
SC 105.2 God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. His existence, His character, the truthfulness of His word, are all established by testimony that appeals to our reason; and this testimony is abundant. Yet God has never removed the possibility of doubt. Our faith must rest upon evidence, not demonstration. Those who wish to doubt will have opportunity; while those who really desire to know the truth will find plenty of evidence on which to rest their faith.
Phil Mills(Quote)
View CommentSean, the people who have to stand up under heavy fire, and risk life and limb, are precisely the ones who must believe in spite of evidence. Because all of the currently observable, empirical evidence is telling them they’re in the wrong faith at the wrong time. They are exactly the ones who cannot be swayed by the evidence of the senses, but must be guided by inner conviction.
And you really need to get over your bigotry against those in the FSM faith. An airborne pasta deity might actually explain a lot.
David Read(Quote)
View Comment@David Read: This time I’m on Tidy-Up patrol. I feel obliged to set straight Dr. Taylor’s positions, since I’ve known and heard him for so long, and cited his declaration that appeared on this site a year ago, to wit, Dr. Pitman has undertaken a Truly Noble Crusade in promoting Genesis 1 despite all odds and all scientific evidence. Dr. Taylor said so in good irony, I thought. Actually he went easy on the sarcasm. And I tried for the same tone – irony, not sarcasm – in my recent essay on how Dr. Pitman’s crusade as characterized by Dr. Taylor differs from others currently being discussed. By the way, there is, I think, a useful operational difference between those words.
Dr. Taylor sees no scientific evidence for Genesis 1, granting whimsically a measly 2% as not inconsistent. Thus he has enthusiastically embraced and advocated evolution, presumably theistic, not a literal Genesis 1. Some on this site are insisting, with Dr. Taylor, that there is no scientific evidence for Genesis 1, but, differing from Dr. Taylor, it must be believed anyway, by faith alone. Dr. Taylor, remaining admirably consistent, has never taken that course. I’m saying this not in defense of Dr. Taylor’s notions but in defense of accuracy in dealing with all parties.
OK, everyone: back to your posts!
Wesley Kime(Quote)
View CommentEven scripture, in and of itself, is a type of evidence. How does the narrative of scripture fit and flow into the culmination of the New Testament. The Gospels are a type of evidence to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. The Bereans were more noble because they studied the OT thoroughly to see if what Paul said was a good fit for the OT evidence. For many, whether it is scientific data, history, or just the testimony of scripture requires that evidence precedes faith.
There are many people, including myself, who needed some scientific evidence before faith could come. Others may not need that type of evidence relying on the evidence of scripture and changed lives. But evidence is always foundational to Biblical faith.
DavidS(Quote)
View CommentHere
Here we are by accident or design
Savoring a bit of ontological wine
Why sour the cup with toxic slur?
Who knows best the Cosmic Vitner?
For Here taste well of varietal drink
The Mind’s Tongue will help you think
Though different tastes, have no fear
All in fellowship, drink in grace Here
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentYour position doesn’t explain why you believe God is trust worthy. It most likely has to do with evidence. It seems like you agree with Sean, yet you continually argue with him, while agreeing with his arguments.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentSean is correct in his characterization, because that seems to be the kind of “faith” that has been championed here by a number of individuals who have faulted Sean for presenting evidence in favor of creation having happened just thousands of years ago.
If you accept the interpretation of evolutionists who believe (by faith) that life began on this planet some billions of years ago and then “by faith” believe that God created the world a few thousand years ago, you are essentially asserting “faith” in what you intellectually recognize as being a falsehood. That’s a good sight worse than a child’s “faith” in Santa Claus, because the child doesn’t “know from evidence” that Santa Claus doesn’t exist.
I do accept God’s Word at face value, and because I accept it at face value, I know that all the evidence, rightly interpreted, will support the historical account in God’s Word. It is an intellectually consistent stance, whereas asserting belief in both evolutionism and biblical creation contravenes all rules of logic and intellectual integrity.
If you really do believe that the Genesis account is a true account of history, why do you characterize Sean’s presentation of scientific evidence to support the Genesis account as being anti-faith??
Inge Anderson(Quote)
View CommentThanks for contributing Wesley!
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentAs a fledging writer myself still at the University of Nevada Reno, I highly object to the style of writing that Dr. Kime exhibits. While we note he is obviously highly educated and very intelligent to boot, this article reeks of me, me, me, look what I can do, see how clever I can write and spin these matters with my crafty words. I simply prefer a straightforward, no-nonsense style that presents my thesis or argument logically and systematically, while attempting to abide by the rules of good expository writing. Furthermore, his information is not correct concerning the scientific community. [edit]
Many other scientists such as Dr. Walter Vieth (http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/c/9/Science/) lectures on the flaws found in evolution, and on the scientific evidence for creation. The carbon-14 dating system has long been known by many scientists to be flawed—it is based on assumptions. Indeed, considering the scientific evidence, and the Bible evidence, for which a serious study of prophecy proves the Bible true—creationists have the luxury of solid, irrefutable evidence proving creation, while evolutionists must exist on blind faith, assumptions, and lies.
The crux of the matter is this: evolutionists have virtual control of America’s public school system aside from Christian Bible–based schools, and because they have rejected the claims of the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, found in Holy Writ–to simply come to Jesus and have eternal life—they have therefore rejected the entire Bible including the Genesis account. Because they have rejected the truth that will save them, God has given them over to the delusions they love (2Thess. 2:9-11). Through it all, evolutionary scientists have attempted the impossible, which is to apply the human measuring system to understand God’s creation—an impossibility. Sadly, the evolutionary scientific community will continue to suffer the results of misconceptions, false science, assumptions, blind faith, and quite simply, the most abject lies.
Job 11:7 Can you by searching find out God? Can you find out the Almighty to perfection?
Job 11:8 It is as high as heaven; what can you do? deeper than hell; what can you know?
Job 11:9 The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.
Steve Billiter(Quote)
View Comment@JohnB:
I couldn’t agree more!
Both faith and evidence must be combined since one cannot have useful meaning or purpose without the other. Faith is not rational without the backing of empirical evidence and empirical evidence is not useful without the ability to take leaps of faith beyond that which can be known with absolute certainty.
Thank you again Dr. Kime for your kind words and insightful comments. Your thoughts are always very much appreciated and your artistic style and flair add much needed freshness and color to these comparatively drab discussions…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentSean, you must remember that many,many of us are NOT scientist–and that definitely includes me. That doesn’t mean we are stupid for we are not-our interests, calling and thought processes simply run along different lines. We have other talents and interests and, life being what it is, it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to spend a lot of time searching for the kind of evidence you seem to find necessary in order for us have an “intelligent faith.”
I, for one, find searching my Bible and studying the prophecies and accepting what God teaches us through them is strong support for believing everything else God tells us. And I do not consider this “blind faith!” After all, God bases His claim to BE God on His ability to do that very thing–His ability to foretell the future–which no one else an do.
And Ellen White tells us that unless we have a clear understanding of Daniel and the Revelation we will not go through the end times successfully.
I make no claims of being a Bible expert (or any other kind of an expert) for I definitely am not–but I’m trying to devote a lot more of my time to learning more about the prophecies–and other Bible truths. (I do have an advantage here because at 87 I am freed from most of the heavier responsibilities I carried for so many years.)
I don’t mean this to be critical of you or anyone else–this is just the way I see it–and I suspect there are a lot of others like me “out there somewhere.”
Sincerely,
Lydian
Lydian(Quote)
View CommentThis is but only the faith of Sean Pitman’s straw man. This is not the faith of the Adventist who accepts God’s word at face value.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentI don’t have a problem telling you why I believe my God is trustworthy, and I’ve said it over and over again (but nobody even seem to even “hear out of that ear”–at least I’ve never seen anyone else even mention the idea.) But to this very old lady it is all of the evidence I’ll ever need–and that’s BIBLE PROPHECY! Show me one evolutionist or one “anybody else” dead or alive who has ever done that–regardless of how many letters they may have following their names! Oh, there have been times when some one has made an “educated guess” that turned out reasonably well but God (alone) has many times told in advance–sometimes centuries in advance–what will ultimately happen to different nations and peoples and when their time has come the prophecy has been (or will be) correct down to slightest detail. As far as I am concerned any One who can do that can be trusted to give an accurate picture of what has happened in the past–even though the current majority of scientists don’t agree with me.
There are many prophecies–especially in the Revelation which apply especially to the “end times” and anyone who closely follows current events recognizes that many are in the process of being fulfilled right before our eyes–and he who is wise can recognize them and be prepared for the trouble-filled days that are just before us.
Someday those who scoff at Him now and try to “prove” He doesn’t exist–or at least that “science” is more trustworthy than He is–will–and I believe a lot sooner than we think–) have to stand before the judgement seat of that God and have to try to explain why he/she lived the way he/she did and why they led so many gullible people (especially our youth) astray. I don’t think there will be any laughing or joking then.
Please don’t misunderstand me. There are many excellent scientists out there who have made many valuable contributions to our life. We owe them a lot! (Believe it or not, many of them are Bible believing men and women!)
I have absolutely no desire to judge, criticize or “run any individual down.” Only God can read the hearts and motives of anyone but I absolutely disagree with anyone who believes and teaches evolution in any form. And I do NOT believe they should be allowed to teach in any of our Adventist institutions or preach in any of our churches.
And I totally disagree with anyone who calls that “BLIND faith.” that is INTELLIGENT faith based on rock-solid evidence!
Lydian(Quote)
View CommentFrom my layman’s perspective: “Science” has discovered much about the way things in nature work and also the systems that support life. What we have learned is a testimony to the intelligence that was given to mankind by his Creator. We are able to tinker and discover how some things work. We boldly call it “science”. What we have learned about the natural laws that God put into place to support our reality, has been put to good use and to bad use.
We will never be able to discover the essence of what we know as “life”. Life is the attribute of our world that separates it from the raw materials that otherwise constitute the world. We know when it (life) is there and we know when it is gone. God has reserved this power to Himself.
Satan is a wily imitator and indeed can appear to perform “miracles”. But he does not have the power to give life. This is seen in the miracles manifested in the story of Moses’ return to Egypt from his years in the wilderness. At God’s command, Moses threw his wooden staff to the ground and it became a live snake. Satan likewise cause his servants to try to imitate the miracle. They were successful – except that their snakes were lifeless.
Our hope for eternal life rests totally with a dependant relationship with God as our provider. It rests on obedience to the only way of life, through Him.
To those who argue in favor of “science” and the notion that religious reality must be subject to it: You are using the flow of life that comes constantly to you from your Creator to do so. God allows you to do this but it cannot continue forever. Turn to Him, acknowledge Him, and submit to Him and He has promised you eternal life.
Charles(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
If evidence is “important” for you, why is it then you disagree so strongly with Sean Pitman? He also believes in the relevant role of faith, otherwise he would have rejected the story of Genesis a long time ago given the geologic evidence which suggests long ages.
Aren’t you perhaps fighting a fictional enemy which has been distorted by those who read Educate Truth with liberal lenses?
Nic Samojluk(Quote)
View CommentSean said…..
“Your argument for faith without positive evidence (even in the face of contrary evidence at the same time) can be used by anyone to believe anything – however nonsensical.”
Sean, no one denies scriptural evidence who is a believer. The dialogue is about scientific evidence vs. biblical evidence, such as prophecy.
There seems to be a “false dilemma” from both perspectives.
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View Comment@Lydian:
I think you’re more of a scientist than you think you are. The basic ability to use various rules of logic (such as induction, deduction, and abduction) is the same as that employed by scientists and forms the basis of scientific methodologies.
You use these same processes when coming to your conclusions regarding the meaning of Biblical prophecies… which are a form of empirical evidence that can be used, in a scientific manner, to support of the Biblical claim to a Divine origin.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentDear Wes
Never left my friend, just been waiting in the wings observing the Dramatis Personae and thinking.
Scene
The curtain opens and our noble Dr. Pitman enters.
“I’ll have grounds
More relative than this- the play’s the thing
Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the Adventist King”
Your agnostic Puck
ken(Quote)
View CommentPhil, NO ONE has argued evidence is inconsequential or unimportant; not me, not Phil Brantley, not anyone else. Our concern is which you will lean toward when Science and Scripture disagree: evidence (as interpreted by human reason), or God’s word?
This is Dr. Pitman’s position:
And this is my position:
Choose ye this day whom you will serve.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment