You cite Wiki articles dealing with the history of YEC …

Comment on The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation by Sean Pitman.

You cite Wiki articles dealing with the history of YEC and OEC and certain forms of gap theories for Genesis 1 as a response to Darwinism in the late 1800s – and I agree. The problem of course, is that most of the gap theorists argue that life, suffering, and death (i.e., the fossil record) pre-existed the creation week on this planet. That is not the type of gap theory promoted by the early Adventist pioneers nor is it promoted today by conservative Adventist leaders or scholars. The passive form of the gap theory promoted by conservative Adventists (historical and modern) argues that no life existed prior to creation week and that all life and all structure necessary to support complex life was in fact created in six literal days – according to the claims of the Biblical authors. This view is and has always been non-controversial within conservative Adventism – to include all the founders of the Adventist Church.

And, most importantly, this view is not at all friendly toward or an effort to compromise with Darwinism. So, it could hardly be in response to Darwinism.

Your repeated comments that Ellen White clearly supported the idea that the entire universe was created on Day 1 of the creation week described in Genesis 1 simply isn’t true. Her main comment that touches on this topic simply says that God was not indebted to pre-existing material in the formation of this planet. This comment can rationally be interpreted in many different ways. It can be interpreted as meaning that God originally formed the material of this planet out of nothing well before the creation week of Genesis. It can also mean that He could have added additional materials during the modification process described in Genesis 1. What it is not is a clear endorsement of the de novo creation of the Earth and the entire universe on Day 1 (i.e., the YEC position) that you suggest it to be.

Consider also the reality that Ellen White personally held to various ideas that may have been mistaken and are downright wrong. She was only human and subject to errors in her own personal ideas and perspective – as were the writers of the Bible. I do believe, however, that what she “was shown” in visions from God are true Divine revelations. She specifically says that she “was shown” by God that our creation week was a literal week, “like any other”. That revelation simply confirms the clear language of the Genesis account and undermines anything other than YLC in no uncertain terms for those who accept that her revelations, and those of the Biblical authors, really are of Divine origin.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation
This is the same language used by the Bible. Whatever “wiggle room” the Bible leaves open is still open when one uses this language. The Bible is not clear that the “creation of the heavens and the earth” means that the material of the Earth itself was created during creation week. Quite the opposite is true. The Bible seems to suggest that something was here prior to creation week. Or, at the very least, leaves this question open.


The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation
Oh please. You do realize that there are difference kinds of “heavens” in Hebrew understanding? This is not a statement arguing that God made the entire universe…


The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation
The question is if you or anyone else has even tried to explain how the evolutionary mechanism (RM/NS) can tenably work beyond very very low levels of functional complexity. The answer to that question is no. This means that this mechanism is not backed up by what anyone would call real science. It’s just-so story telling. That’s it. There is nothing in scientific literature detailing the statistical odds of RM/NS working at various levels of functional complexity. And, there is no demonstration beyond systems that require a few hundred averagely specified residues.

What is interesting is that no one who controls the mainstream journals will publish any observations as to why a real scientific basis for the Darwinian mechanism is lacking. The basic information is there. Contrary to Pauluc’s claims, a precise definition of “levels of functional complexity” has been published, along with what happens to the ratios of potential beneficial vs. non-benficial sequences. What no one is allowing to be published is the implications of this information.

Regardless, the implications should be clear to you. The math is overwhelmingly clear. If the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial goes from 1 in 100 to 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 the fact that the average time to success will decrease quite dramatically doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out. Evolutionists, who have actually seriously considered this problem must recognize the implications here, but seem to be trying to brush it all under the rug because no one knows of any other viable mechanism (again, despite Pauluc’s unsupported claims to the contrary – to include his “life enzymes”).

In any case, it is possible for you to move beyond blind faith in the unsupported claims of your “experts” and consider the information that is available to all for yourself. Start at least trying to do a little math on your own and you will no doubt recognize the problem for yourself regardless of what your experts continue to claim – without any basis in empirical evidence or science.

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.