@pauluc: You’re certainly welcome to your opinion that Moses didn’t …

Comment on Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation by Sean Pitman.

@pauluc:

You’re certainly welcome to your opinion that Moses didn’t not actually get his vision directly from God, but from the legends of cultures around him. Yet, he claims to have spoken face to face with God in a very direct manner. On top of this, he wrote Genesis in a manner suggesting Divine authority or the Divine origin of the information written – an account that he intended his readers to take literally as true history inspired by God Himself. Now, Either Moses was a liar, or insane, or honestly deluded, or he was who he said he was – a prophet directly inspired by God as few have ever been. The same goes for Mrs. White. She also says that she was shown, in a vision from God, that the creation week of Genesis was the same as any other week since that time – i.e., seven literal days.

Let’s suppose that these “prophets” were really no more inspired by God than anyone else who’s written a good novel or moral fable. Ok, so why give the Bible or Christianity any more credibility than agnosticism or atheism? Why believe in the existence of God at all? I know, you have your own personal metaphysical experiences with God. If so, why do you read the Bible at all to gain any knowledge of God? – since you have your own personal experience to depend on, what more does a book filled with nothing but moral fables give you?

As far as a “God of the Gaps” argument goes and my understanding of science in general, please, by all means, do tell me how sciences like forensic science, anthropology, and SETI hope to distinguish true artifact from the products of mindless natural processes? I’ve asked you this very simple question several times before, but you keep avoiding it. Why is that? Do you really think that the detection of deliberately designed artifacts is beyond the realm of scientific detection? Really? Please… who’s the one who doesn’t understand scientific methodologies here?

By the way, I’ve published a few papers in medical journals and know a little bit about how publishing works. For those who read a lot of medical and science papers, it’s quite clear that a paper doesn’t have to be stellar or even all that Earth-shattering to be published in most science journals. So, you’d think it would be relatively easy to get something published in at least some science journals regarding the obvious limits of the Darwinian mechanism. After all, many scientists know of the serious creative limitations of RM/NS. It’s no secret. However, after what happened to Sternberg, do you honestly think any paper even hinting at supporting ID for any biological system is going to get published? – anywhere? You have your head in the sand my friend… and I suggest you at least read Meyers book. A short paper isn’t enough to do justice to the history and concepts behind the science of intelligent design regarding certain features of biosystems – specifically the high levels of functional complexity that exist in all living things…

If you won’t read his book or even my own arguments which I’ve published in my website and in my own little book, then please at least try and respond to my simple question: How do sciences that do in fact strive to distinguish intelligently produced artifacts from the products of mindless nature actually hope to achieve this feat? How do forensic scientists, anthropologists, and even SETI scientists hope to be successful? What scientific argument do they employ? And, can this argument be universally applied?

It’s a simple question…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
@Ron:

So, now all of a sudden, you DO believe in Darwinian evolution. Have you talked to Bob about that? Is he going to allow you to stay in the church?

There is no “all of a sudden” about it. We’ve believed in very limited forms of evolution via random mutations all along. Mendelian variation has also always been accepted as a fact of nature by creationists. I’m still not quite sure how you could have concluded otherwise?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
@Ron:

Why then are you arguing against us? If you are perfectly content with a literal six day creation week, then where is your argument with us? We are all fine with the existence of very limited forms of Darwinian-style evolution occurring at low levels of functional complexity since the Fall. Our only problem is with those teaching in our schools telling our students that the neo-Darwinian story of origins, to include the existence and evolution of all forms of life on this planet, from a very simple common ancestor over hundreds of millions of years, is the true story of origins – that the literal six-day creation week is nonsense. That’s what we’re having a problem with.

If you agree with us in this regard, what then is your concern?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
@Ron:

The founding fathers did indeed argue against creeds, organization, and church government of any kind. However, they soon discovered the impracticality of this position and changed their minds. They all, including Mrs. White, ended up supporting standards of church order and government, to include the adoption of rules of enforcement particularly in regard to who could officially represent the church in a paid capacity.

Of course, those who were not considered to accurately represent the views of the early SDA Church did not receive “cards of commendation”. In other words, they were let go from church employment. And what was the attitude of such persons? – according to Loughborough?:

Of course those who claimed “liberty to do as they pleased,” to “preach what they pleased,” and to “go when and where they pleased,” without “consultation with any one,” failed to get cards of commendation. They, with their sympathizers, drew off and commenced a warfare against those whom they claimed were “depriving them of their liberty.” Knowing that it was the Testimonies that had prompted us as a people to act, to establish “order,” these opponents soon turned their warfare against instruction from that source, claiming that “when they got that gift out of the way, the message would go unrestrained to its `loud cry.’ ”

One of the principal claims made by those who warred against organization was that it “abridged their liberty and independence, and that if one stood clear before the Lord that was all the organization needed,” etc… All the efforts made to establish order are considered dangerous, a restriction of rightful liberty, and hence are feared as popery.”

Loughborough, JN. Testimonies for the Church. p. 650. Vol. 1.

It seems to me like you have the same attitude as those who where excluded from being paid representatives of the early SDA Church by our founding fathers…

Also, the fact that Mrs. White clearly claimed to have been shown, directly by God, the literal nature of the Genesis account of the creation week, completely undermines any leeway you could possibly claim in her writings for the neo-Darwinist position. The neo-Darwinist position is fundamentally opposed to the SDA position on origins and always has been. It is also opposed to the rationality and credibility of Christianity in general.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


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.