Sean Pitman: I suggest to you that those who believe that …

Comment on Faith & Science Sabbath School examines LSU’s apology by Eddie.

Sean Pitman: I suggest to you that those who believe that the significant weight of evidence counters the young-life position aren’t going to be able to present evidence for the young-life position in the most positive light possible…

I disagree.

Sean Pitman: If such evidences for long-ages are to be presented in our classrooms, and I believe that they should be presented, they should also be tempered by presenting the numerous know problems with such dating methods along with potential explanations from the creationist perspective (and there are some interesting potential solutions to many, though certainly not all, of the problems presented by such arguments).

I agree. That’s exactly what me and my colleagues do.

Ken: Sure, a few like you and Prof. Kent may stay in the Church in spite of the perceived weight of evidence or because of empirically blind faith alone. But, for many many people, blind faith arguments just aren’t good enough.

Assuming I correctly understand Professor Kent’s position, neither of us exercise nor promote blind faith. Speaking for myself, my faith IS based on evidence: for design, historical accuracy of the Bible, fulfilled Biblical prophecies, testimonies of fellow believers, personal experiences, etc. But not much of the evidence can be subjected to scientific scrutiny. My faith is NOT based on empirical evidence for life < 6,000 years old or 100% of the world being covered by Noah's flood.

I'm not satisfied that science can or ever will in my lifetime provide a conclusive answer to origins, so that is where faith fills the gaps where evidence is lacking.

I think we need to be humble in recognizing that science is limited in answering many of the fundamental questions about origins. If my beliefs were based purely on science I would be agnostic, like our friend Ken. But I would rather take a leap of faith and place my trust in a Creator who designed life and created it less than 10,000 years ago.

Sean Pitman: I therefore remain in the Church because I actually see the weight of evidence as strongly favoring the Church’s fundamental goals and ideals – to include its position on origins (a position which I consider to be one of the most fundamental aspects of Adventism and Christianity at large).

Good for you, but I think there are far more important aspects of Adventism and Christianity than believing that life was created in six literal days 6,000 years ago and that 100% of the planet was covered by Noah’s flood. I don’t recall Jesus telling the young ruler or the healed blind man or the healed paralytic or the healed demoniac or Nicodemus or any of his disciples or the thief on the cross that they needed to interpret Genesis literally in order to be saved.

Eddie Also Commented

Faith & Science Sabbath School examines LSU’s apology

Sean Pitman: You say that presenting the evidence for young life would be counterproductive since such arguments would get blown out of the water.

I never said that nor would I ever agree with that statement. By all means such evidence for young life should be presented in the most positive light possible. Nevertheless, there is a lot of evidence for longer periods of time for life that is difficult for many of us to dismiss, and I don’t think science educators would be helping out the creationist cause by telling students that all of the evidence for long ages is baloney. There is no scientifically tenable explanation for why various methods of radiometric dating consistently yield ages longer than 6,000 years.

Sean Pitman: While not necessarily as overwhelming as the evidence for design behind the anthropic universe or the complexity of living things, I do in fact see the clear weight of evidence (to include fossil, geological, and even genetic evidence) as favoring the young-life position.

Many Christians have lost their faith because of the empirical evidence for long ages of life on Earth. Do you know of any atheist who became a Christian because of the empirical evidence for life on Earth being less than 10,000 years old?

Let me be transparent about my personal position: I believe in a young age of life on Earth, but not because of the empirical evidence. I see through a glass darkly and I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. Whatever happened in the past happened. Other matters are more important.


Faith & Science Sabbath School examines LSU’s apology

Sean Pitman: certain aspects of Creationism are “overwhelming” – such as the need for a highly intelligent Agent to explain certain features of the finely tuned anthropic universe as well as high levels of qualitatively novel functional complexity within living things.

Agreed. And I believe nearly all SDA science professors would agree.

Sean Pitman: And, I happen to know quite a few SDA scientists myself who do not agree that professors in SDA schools should be promoting mainstream evolutionary theories while on the payroll of the SDA Church

Again I agree with you 100%. I’m quite certain the vast majority of SDA science professors would agree with you.

Sean Pitman: professors in our SDA schools should actually be able and willing to promote the rational superiority of the SDA perspective on origins compared to modern evolutionary theories.

True with abiogenesis, but you’re swimming upstream with the age of life on the planet and many aspects of the geological record.

Sean Pitman: It would still be counterproductive for the SDA Church to hire scientists who declare the Church’s position on origins is scientifically untenable.

Most would probably agree that it is “weak,” not necessarily “untenable.” It would be counterproductive for the SDA Church to hire scientists who declare the churh’s position on origins is strongly supported by the scientific evidence.


Faith & Science Sabbath School examines LSU’s apology
Sean, you’re sitting on the right field foul pole when you insist that only those who believe the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence supports SDA beliefs on origins should be working for GRI or teaching in an SDA institution.

I personally do not know a single SDA scientist with a PhD degree (and I happen to know many) who would agree with either of your beliefs that (1) the scientific evidence overwhelmingly favors SDA beliefs and (2) only those who believe so are fit for church employment. If any SDA scientists agree with you, why do you suppose they aren’t publicly declaring their agreement with you here?


Recent Comments by Eddie

Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation

SDA Bio Prof: The Bible makes multiple falsifiable prophecies about Nebuchadnezzar conquering Egypt, yet history never records it happening. Does this mean the Bible is effectively falsified?

Sean Pitman: Egyptians had a strong tendency not to record their losses… only their victories.

Sean, does that mean YOU personally believe Babylon conquered Egypt, just as predicted by two prophets? In the absence of any empirical evidence? If the Egyptians didn’t record their losses, why wouldn’t the Babylonians have recorded such a stunning victory?


Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit

Holly Pham: One of the things that has always concerned me is that, according to what I’ve read, birds and reptiles have completely different forms of respiratory systems (flow-through vs. bellows) How is this explained by evolutionists?

Evidence from the vertebrae of non-avian theropod dinosaurs suggests that they, too, possessed unidirectional flow-through ventilation of the lungs. So, according to evolutionary theory, it evolved first in “primitive” non-avian theropods rather than in birds, and comprises one of many shared derived characters supposedly linking birds with more “advanced” theropods. However, I don’t think there is any evidence or even a hypothesis for a step-by-step process of HOW it evolved. Here is a reference:

http://www.ohio.edu/people/ridgely/OconnorClaessensairsacs.pdf


Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
@Bob Helm: Bob, if you send me an e-mail at sdabioprof2@gmail.com I will send you a pdf file of a 1991 article published by Chatterjee in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 332:277-342, titled “Cranial anatomy and relationships of a new Triassic bird from Texas.”

Curiously his description is based only on cranial anatomy. I don’t think he ever published an analysis of its postcranial anatomy.


Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit

David Read: Eddie, ecological zonation will yield the same basic order that you’re pointing to: invertebrates appear before vertebrates; fish appear before amphibians; amphibians appear before reptiles; reptiles appear before mammals; reptiles appear before birds, etc.

It could, and it’s the best creationist explanation, but it doesn’t explain why flowering plants were absent from lowland forests. Or why so many land plants appeared before mangroves, which today occur strictly in the intertidal zone. Or why no pre-flood humans have been found. Or, if Sean is correct that the flood ended at the K-T boundary, why many modern groups of birds and mammals (including marine mammals) which first appear during the Tertiary were not buried by the flood.

David Read: The fact that something appears before something else in the fossil record is not proof than anything evolved into anything else.

True.

David Read: You seem to be complaining that God has not made the fossil evidence compulsory, i.e., so clear that no reasonable person can possibly doubt it. And if God hasn’t made the evidence skeptic-proof, then the skeptic is God’s fault, God is responsible for the skeptic.

I’m not complaining. I’m merely pointing out that the evidence can be interpreted in different ways by honest people. And I’m relieved to see that even you don’t think the evidence is crystal clear.

David Read: Only people of faith can be saved, that is, only people who are willing to trust God and put away doubts can be saved.

I agree.


Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit

David Read: Those tracks are so obviously bird tracks that the fact that some scientists want to assign them to “birdlike theropods” is itself a very useful teaching tool as to how the model creates the data.

David Read: That the model actually creates the data is one of the hardest concepts to get across, not only to lay people but even to the scientists themselves.

How does the model affect the data? Data don’t change and they shouldn’t change. It’s the interpretation, not the data, that is affected by the model.