Comment on Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation by Ron.
Sean Pitman: There is no argument here over nylonase or other such low levels of functional complexity – which can and do happen, rapidly and commonly, in observable time without the need to invoke intelligent design
Ok Sean, I just want to be clear. Please correct me if I am wrong. So you believe bacteria developing new genetic material that has never existed before, is an example of atheistic evolution. Correct? (I happen to disagree, I think God was involved in the process, and I believe in theistic evolution, but for now, we will put that aside and I will accept your position.)
Sure, this is a very minor change. It is not the full blown species change,described by the full evolutionary theory, but in this one, tiny event we have an example of Darwinian principles at work. i.e. through random changes in the DNA by mechanisms you explained so nicely in your article, the bacteria developed a new characteristic (nylonase) that gave certain bacteria a survival advantage, and the resulting selection bias (survival of the fittest) resulted in the development of a whole new population of bacteria with the new and improved capacity. Am I correct so far?
So I think we can agree that at least in this one small example, Darwinian principles are correct. Agreed?
I would also note that this event did not require any immoral event. i.e. there was no unnatural death or extinction of any single bacteria. Every bacteria involved in the process lived a full, prosperous and as contented a life as possible on the bacterial scale. Are we still in agreement? By analogy, this would be like our kids doing better and being more prosperous that we were. This is the dream of every parent. We would not think that is a bad thing, and we would not cast dispersion on God as a result. Am I still correct?
Is there anything in the process I have just described that is incompatible with Genesis?
Table of Contents
Ron Also Commented
Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
@BobRyan:
How much post creation evoltion is allowed?
Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
@BobRyan</
I never even implied a proto life or anything other than a six day creation. I am talking about what happens after creation.
Sean thinks that at least some Darwinian evolution takes place now. How does that happen?. Did god create the mechanisms originally, and they now happen atheistically, or does He continue to be active in the process?
Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
Sean, So I think I am hearing from you that a Biblical creation model would allow for basically any kind Is htof evolution there is, or which we might discover as long as it is destructive in nature, or is not too complex. is that right? You don’t believe that it is possible to believe that significant improvements are possible and still be a creationist.
Are you able to define that bounday between significant and minor theologically?
Recent Comments by Ron
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Sean Pitman: No one is demanding that they “get out of the church”. . . . . anti-Adventist views on such a fundamental level.
You don’t see how characterizing a dedicated believer’s understanding of truth as “fundamentally anti-Adventist” would drive them out of the church?
I guess that explains why you don’t see that what you are doing here is fundamentally wrong.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Professor Kent: Nothing saddens me more than the droves who leave the Church when they learn that many of their cherished beliefs regarding this evidence don’t hold up so well to scrutiny.
I agree. I am sure that Sean and Bob don’t mean to undermine faith in God, but every time they say that it is impossible to believe in God and in science at the same time, I feel like they are telling me that any rational person must give up their belief in God, because belief in God and rationality can’t exist in the same space. Who would want to belong to that kind of a church?
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Sean Pitman: and have little if anything to do with the main point of their prophetic claims
And by analogy, this appears to be a weak point in the creation argument. Who is to decide what the main point is?
It seems entirely possible that in trying to make Gen. 1 too literal, that we are missing the whole point of the story.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Regarding falsifying the existence of God through the miraculous:
While it is true that one can’t falsify the existance of God and the Biblical miracles at a philosophical level, it seems to me that it is possible to falsify it at a practical level. For instance prayer for healing. How many families who pray for a miracle for a loved one in the Intensive Care Unit receive a miracle?
While the answer to that question doesn’t answer the question of the existence of God at a philosophical level, it does answer the question at a practical level. After 36 years of medical practice I can say definitively that at a practical level when it comes to miracles in the ICU, God does not exist. Even if a miracle happens latter today, it wouldn’t be enough to establish an expectation for the future. So at a practicle level it seems it is possible level to falsify the existence od God, or at least prove His nonintervention which seems to me to be pretty much the same thing at a functional level.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Sean Pitman:
Sean, what is your definition of “Neo-darwinism” as opposed to “Darwinism” as opposed to “evolution”?
