Comment on La Sierra University won’t neglect creation teaching, president, chairman vow by Sean Pitman.
@Ken:
Does this beg the question as to whether the SDA needs schools at all? Isn’t this exactly the ignorance that Dr. Pitman is trying to combat, by demonstrating that there is a scientific basis for creationism that requires teaching? Or should the SDA abandon any pretense of teaching science at all, as you seem to suggest?
While higher classical education is often an advantage in life and is worth obtaining, it is by no means the only way to become very educated and well versed in a given field of study. Jesus himself was called out for not having attending the official schools of his day (John 7:15). This doesn’t mean he was uneducated – far from it. One could say that he had an excellent “home school” program.
The same is true of the likes of David Asscherick who is very very well educated and extremely bright and well-read even “without having ever learned” in the usual standard way. Those who like to refer to his lack of standard education as a reason to hold him up as ignorant or opposed to the Church’s education system simply haven’t spent much time listening to him and considering his surprisingly extensive wealth of knowledge and insight given his relatively young age.
So, when a high school student, of all people (or anyone else for that matter), refers to someone as naturally gifted, hard working, and thoughtful as David Asscherick as an “imbecile”, who comes away looking really foolish?
Sean Pitman, M.D.
www.DetectingDesign.comSean Pitman Also Commented
La Sierra University won’t neglect creation teaching, president, chairman vow
@Professor Kent:God has given us the ability to put our emotions under the control of our minds. Emotions are not to govern the mind. Rather, the mind is to govern the emotions. We therefore need not and should not let our higher reasoning abilities be “hijacked” by our emotions.
There was no valid reason for Eve to have been tricked into sin. If there was, she would not have been guilty of sin. She had the clear weight of empirical evidence favoring the reliability of God’s love and His word.
For Eve to then act contrary to this weight of evidence because she personally desired for the words of the serpent to be true was therefore an act of selfishness – an act contrary to the love of what she knew to be true.
That, by definition, is sin – a deliberate rebellion against the Royal Law of Love. No one is really truly tricked into sin. Sin must be a deliberate rebellion against what is known to be true in order for the act to be sinful. After all, wasn’t it Jesus who said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin”? (John 9:41 NIV)
Professor Kent: “>You wrote in another post:
Oh really? How was the empirical evidence available to Noah any different than what we have today?
When was the last time you talked directly with God? When was the last time you went to the Garden of Eden and saw, with your own eyes, an angel with a flashing sword guarding the way? Have you lived several hundred years and experienced innumerable answers to prayer that could only have been the result of the miraculous hand of God? Noah could say yes to all of these questions. This is why Noah, even without the Bible, could rationally believe the Word of God as actually coming from a God who would bring to pass what he had promised – as He had done for Noah so many times before.
God knows that He must provide evidence of who He is before He can be rationally believed and trusted. God does not expect us to blindly follow all voices (or texts) claiming to be from God. He provides actual evidence that appeals to the candid mind. It is only in the rejection of such evidence that we fall into sin for deliberately rejecting what we rationally know to be true.
Let the reader compare Sean’s claims to the statement of Ellen White:
“BY FAITH Noah, being warned of God OF THINGS NOT SEEN AS YET [therefore lacking empirical evidence of validity], moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.†Hebrews 11:7. While Noah was giving his warning message to the world, his works testified of his sincerity. It was thus that his faith was perfected and made evident. HE GAVE THE WORLD AN EXAMPLE OF BELIEVING JUST WHAT GOD SAYS.(emphasis supplied) – EGW, PP chptr 7
Indeed. But, he believed based on the evidence, the empirical evidence, that he had experienced with God prior to building the Ark. He wasn’t following the direction of some strange voice coming to him out of nowhere. He had extensive experience with God that included abundant empirical evidence that God was someone who could be trusted and who was immensely powerful.
Sean, what would you advise Elder Neil Wilson if he announced that the SDA Church was going to engage in a massive fund-raising campaign and construction program to erect a massive dam around the entirety of Greenland’s coast, because, he claimed, God had appeared to him personally and instructed him to do this to save the planet from global warming, which the glacier ice melt would facilitate? Would you tell him to stick with trust in God’s word, or would you tell him to use his reason and all available empirical evidence to recognize the sheer absurdity of God’s instruction?
I would hope that he had been given a clear sign that what he heard was in fact the voice of God. Again, many voices falsely claim to be the Word of God. You have to be able to tell the true from the false. How is this done? Via the establishment of empirical evidence that appeals to the rational higher mind. Otherwise, you have no real basis for accepting one voice that claims to be the voice of God over any other voice claiming to be the voice of God.
And one more question: what would YOU have done if you were an antedulivian and heard Noah’s urging to join him and his family in the ark? Would you have listened to Noah (God’s word), or relied on your reason, your knowledge of scientifically based empirical evidence? After all, the world had never seen rain or a flood, much less a massive boat built far from the coast.
The entire world had seen an angel guarding the Garden entrance. Also, the entire world was show the miraculous sign of the animals going into the Ark via an unseen hand that should have been clear evidence of Noah’s connection with the Divine. Also, the entire world was well aware of the evil state of the world and that the words of Noah in this regard were empirically true. Because of this, the citizens of Nineveh who repented at the preaching of Jonah will stand up in the final judgment and condemn the antediluvian world who refused to repent at the preaching of Noah…
You seen the Antediluvian people were not destroyed so much because they didn’t get on the Ark. They were destroyed because their thoughts had become evil continually and they refused to repent of what they knew were their evil ways at the preaching of Noah.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
La Sierra University won’t neglect creation teaching, president, chairman vow
@Professor Kent:Interpreting the meaning of Scripture is not the same thing as determining the credibility or reliability of what Scripture is saying. A novel or a fairytale can be internally consistent and its meaning clearly understood. A very well written internally consistent text claiming to be the Word of God doesn’t mean it actually is the Word of God. Bald claims simply aren’t enough to establish reliability because many falsely make such claims. Therefore, one must be able to make a determination between the false and the true based on some external reference – i.e., some actual external evidence that verifies the claim of a given individual or text.
Your argument that one must simply trust God doesn’t explain how one determines who, among many claimed representatives of God, is actually the true representative (such as the case of Elijah on Mt. Carmel). Upon what basis does one decide to trust one and not another? You have yet to seriously address this question.
Satan’s appeal to Eve was not based on the weight of empirical evidence. The weight of empirical evidence available to Eve was strongly in support of what she had been told by God. It was God, not the serpent, who had given abundant empirical evidence of his love, care, and creative power to both Adam and Eve. Eve wasn’t tricked for a lack of the clear weight of empirical evidence. She was tricked because she let her emotions overcome her higher reasoning capabilities. Satan appealed, not so much to her mind, but to her emotions.
In fact, it would have been wrong for God to punish Eve had He not already provided her with the abundant weight of evidence with regard to his own character and nature. The sin of Eve was in knowing who God was and His love for her, yet rejecting His love in an effort to selfishly try to acquire something that was not hers. In other words, she tried to steal from God in the full light of the empirical knowledge of God. She deliberately broke the Royal Law of Love.
She could not plead innocence due to ignorance or she would have done so. If she had truly been ignorant of the Royal Law, of having acted contrary to love for the One who had demonstrated overwhelming empirical evidence of His love for her, she would not have felt shame nor would she, together with Adam, have tried to hide from the face of God…
This is the danger of empirically-blind faith in anything. Such faith is emotion-driven. It isn’t based on God-given reasoning abilities to discern truth based on the weight of empirical evidence that he has provided to appeal to the candid mind.
“God gives evidence, which must be carefully investigated with a humble mind and a teachable spirit, and all should decide from the weight of evidence. God gives sufficient evidence for the candid mind to believe; but he who turns from the weight of evidence because there are a few things which he cannot make plain to his finite understanding, will be left in the cold, chilling atmosphere of unbelief and questioning doubts, and will make shipwreck of faith.â€
– Ellen White, Testimonies Ibid., vol 3, p. 255; Ibid., vol. 5, p. 675., vol. 4, pp. 232, 233; Ibid., vol. 5, pp. 675, 676.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
La Sierra University won’t neglect creation teaching, president, chairman vow
I love empirical data myself, and engage in collecting or analyzing it on a regular basis. I think it can illuminate much about scripture. However, it cannot be put on equal footing or higher than God’s word. If scripture and empirical evidence conflict, the faithful SDA is going to choose God’s word regardless.
One cannot determine if Scripture is in fact likely to be God’s Word vs. other options without rational thought – rational thought that takes into account the overall weight of available evidence. Emotion-driven religion need not be based on rational thoughts or arguments or evidence of any kind; but emotions are also not a very reliable basis for much of anything.
For example, the founding fathers (and mother) of the SDA Church believed at one point that the Bible clearly said that Jesus would come in 1844. Well, Jesus did not come on 1844. The empirical evidence overwhelmingly falsified their Biblical interpretation.
The only reason why they did not give up on the Bible entirely is because the clear reading and interpretation of the Bible had proved so reliable in so many other instances where it could be tested against empirical reality. If all or even most other Biblical interpretations concerning empirical reality had failed just as miserably, no rational person would long be able to take it at face value as being the Word of God with any kind of reliability or predictive value with regard to any kind of truth whatsoever.
Unfortunately, there are certain SDA university faculty we’ve read much about here, and at least one SDA physician, who prioritize science and empirical data ahead of a simple “Thus saith the Lord.â€
Anyone can say, “Thus saith the Lord” all day long. That phrase doesn’t mean anything by itself. It isn’t some magical chant. Prophets and all kinds of “Scriptures” claim to be from God. Yet, there are false prophets and false Scriptures and even false interpretations of true Scripture. How does one tell the true from the false? How is the Bible detected as being the one true ultimate revelation of God’s will? by which all other “revelations” can then be tested?
If one wishes to have a rational religion that is based on something more than wishful thinking and warm fuzzy feelings inside, one is forced to use one’s brain at least a little bit – i.e., to actually evaluate and test the Bible to “see if it is good” – to see if it is in fact what it claims to be. The Bible itself invites such empirical tests. It actually challenges its readers to put its own claims to the test and see if they are not true. The Bible bases its own claims on testable empirical realities that are open for all to investigate.
The truth really has nothing to fear from being put to the test. If God is the Truth, then He has nothing to fear from being put to the test either…
God knows and understands our subjective nature. That is why He does not judge us for being confused or making honest mistakes at times. We are only judged for making deliberate decisions against what we know to be true…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
If the human immune system were the “perfect mechanism” that God originally designed it to be, you’d be right. However, after ~6000 years of sin and decay, the human immune system is no longer what God originally designed it to be – as evidenced by the great many, even among healthy vegan SDAs, who died during the pandemic. Water and light therapies are great and are helpful as layers of protection, but for many, especially those over the age of 65, whey were not enough. The mRNA vaccines were very effective in providing an additional much needed layer of protection during the pandemic. Now, I’ve very glad that you did not get sick enough to require hospitalization and that you avoided long-term injuries and death during the pandemic, but many many others were not so fortunate.
Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
Yeah, I think you’re right…
Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
Hi Sean,
Hope all is well.
I see you wrote a recent article defending the covid vaccine. You seem to be the main protagonist in the church championing the cause of the covid vaccines.
I am on the opposite spectrum
I personally did not touch any of those vaccines, and won’t ever either. I just see to many red flags and it’s alarming to me. Could you possibly explain to me what Revelation 18:23 speaks about please? I would love to hear your take on that verse.
Justin S
Hi Justin,
Thank you for your note. I do appreciate your concerns and your convictions. It can be very confusing to sort out so many different voices saying so many different things regarding what to think and what do to keep oneself as healthy as possible.
Regarding Revelation 18:23, in particular, the term “pharmakeia” is best translated as “sorcery” here. There is no intended advice at all against modern medicine in this passage. After all, would it be wise to suggest that medications like antibiotics to treat bacterial infections or insulin to treat diabetes are evil “sorceries”? Again, such arguments only make the Christians who say such things look sensational and irrational – which puts the Gospel Message itself into a bad light for those who are considering following Christ.
Consider also that Ellen White herself promoted various medications and medical therapies of her day that she considered to be helpful in various situations? – to include the use of what was generally regarded as a “poison”, quinine, to prevent malarial infections for missionaries who worked in malaria-infested regions of the world? She wrote, “If quinine will save a life, use quinine.” (http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/the-arguments-of-adventists-opposed-to-vaccines/#Ellen-White-and-the-Smallpox-Vaccine) She also supported the vaccination of her son William, both as a child and as an adult (despite William having had an adverse reaction to vaccination as a child) (http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/the-arguments-of-adventists-opposed-to-vaccines/#Ellen-White-and-the-Smallpox-Vaccine). She supported blood transfusion when necessary, despite their risks (https://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=2SM&lang=en&collection=2§ion=all&pagenumber=303). And, she even supported using radiation therapy when appropriate, despite its risks (https://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=2SM&lang=en&collection=2§ion=all&pagenumber=303). Beyond this, she recognized the advantages of anesthesia during surgery and the use of medicines to relieve the intense pain and suffering of the injured or sick (https://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=2SM&lang=en&collection=2§ion=all&pagenumber=286&QUERY=before+major+surgery&resultId=1&isLastResult=1).
I hope this helps you at least understand why I take the position that I take. I mean, I’m a pathologist with subspecialties in anatomic, clinical, and hematopathology and have studied COVID-19 and the mRNA vaccines in great detail. Beyond this, I’ve seen the results myself, with my own eyes – and so has my brother-in-law, pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult who runs a large ICU in S. Cal. We’ve seen ICUs overflowing, beyond max capacity, with the very sick and the dying during the height of the pandemic – the vast majority of whom were unvaccinated. Roger’s face and hands are the last things that many saw and felt on this Earth. It was very personal for us. We were actually direct eyewitnesses. And, we’re not alone. This very same situation was happening all around the world during the pandemic. Truly, the mRNA vaccines saved millions of lives and prevented many many more hospitalizations and long-term injuries.
Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
Regarding Mandates:“While the available data in 2021 and early 2022 suggested that being vaccinated conferred tremendous personal benefit to the recipient, such that it was unclear if there could be added gain for demanding others be vaccinated too for added protection. By mid-2022, vaccines did offer modest reduction in transmission, but personal health benefits against severe disease were largely retained. Yet, by the fall of 2022, with the emergence of the Omicron variant, a new verdict had emerged. Vaccines were unable to halt transmission in the presence of escape variants; thus, here too, mandates failed to meet the ethical pre-requisite of benefit to others, as a vaccinated person could still spread the virus. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed comparable rates of viral shedding comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated people with COVID-19 (Boucau et al. 2022).” (Vinay Prasad, 2024)
I was never personally a fan of the vaccine mandates put out by the US government (or other governments around the world) since they seemed to me to be largely counterproductive and provide little benefit regarding limiting the spread of the virus after the Omicron variant came out. As Dr. Prasad points out here (Link), the mRNA vaccines were so good as far as personal protection was concerned, that limiting the spread of COVID-19, once the vaccines became available, was kind of a moot point.
That being said, once the government mandates were in place, I also didn’t see it as appropriate to claim religious liberty as a reason for refusing to get vaccinated – since there is nothing in the Bible that would prevent one from obeying a government mandate along these lines (Link). People often cite the case of Daniel and his three friends refusing the king’s meat as a Biblical basis for refusing to comply with vaccine mandates. The problem here is that the vaccines themselves were not unhealthy or unreasonable during a pandemic and their use was not recognized as a form of idol worship. Also, Daniel’s proposed 10-day test would not have had the same results with respect to the mRNA vaccines, but would have shown benefits for the significant majority of people.
As Ellen White put it:
“In cases where we are brought before the courts, we are to give up our rights, unless it brings us in collision with God. It is not our rights we are pleading for, but God’s right to our service.” (Ellen White, Manuscript Releases 5:69 – 1895)
Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
Wow! I had no idea.However, this does seem to be inconsistent with the following on Canadian Law regarding Religious Liberty (from the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms):
Sincerity of belief is a question of fact. To establish sincerity, an individual must show that they sincerely believe that a certain belief or practice is required by their religion. The religious belief must be asserted in good faith and must not be fictitious, capricious or an artifice. In assessing the sincerity of the belief, a court will take into account, inter alia, the credibility of the testimony of the person asserting the particular belief and the consistency of the belief with that person’s other current religious practices (Multani, supra at paragraph 35; Amselem, supra at paragraphs 52-53). It is the sincerity of the belief at the time of the interference, not its strength or absolute consistency over time, that is relevant at this stage of the analysis (R. v. N.S., [2012] 3 S.C.R. 726 at paragraph 13).
The Court does not want to engage in theological debates when examining the practice or belief in question. The practice or belief in question need not be required by official religious dogma nor need it be in conformity with the position of religious officials. Freedom of religion extends beyond obligatory doctrine to voluntary expressions of faith and is not restricted to major and recognizable religions (Amselem, supra at paragraphs 46-50, 53, and 56). A protected religious practice need not be part of an established belief system or even a belief shared by others. An individual need only demonstrate a sincere belief that the practice is of religious significance to the individual (Little v. R., 2009 NBCA 53, leave to appeal dismissed, [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 417 at paragraph 7). It is not appropriate to adduce expert evidence showing sincerity or lack thereof (Amselem, supra at paragraph 54).
https://justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2a.html
So, given the above, are there any examples were someone actually was able to present so-called “objective” evidence in the form of a “tenet of religious faith”, which actually achieved success? where such an individual would not have been fired? I mean, let’s just say, for argument sake, that the Catholic Church had a fundamental tenet of faith which opposed vaccinations. Would this really have made a difference in Alberta for members of the Catholic Church? Would these people have been allowed to keep their jobs while all other vaccine objectors lost theirs? – despite the statements above suggesting that personal religious belief and liberties are not dependent upon that of an established belief system?
It’s not that I’m opposed to mandated civil laws in an effort to maintain public safety/health. For example, various kinds of jobs require one to be follow various personal health regulations – like working in the hospital or performing surgeries while masking and wearing sterile gloves and taking various vaccinations. There are also quarantine laws that are quite reasonable in various situations/settings. That being said, great efforts should be made to support personal religious/moral convictions as long as such support does not significantly interfere with the liberty and/or safety of others.
Any suggestions on any potential improvement of the wording of the SDA position on vaccines or other modern medical therapies and/or religious liberty statements?
