Comment on The Adventist Accrediting Association to Approve LSU’s Accreditation by Sean Pitman.
Looking at this summary the problem largely lies in your apparent assumption that YEC is equivalent to Young universe creationism. A position I have never heard explicitly articulated.
I’m very surprised to hear this given your many references to Wiki articles on this topic. As noted by Wiki, the standard YEC position is that the entire universe was created during creation week.
“Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. Its primary adherents are those Christians and Jews who, using a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as a basis, believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Adhering_church_bodies
This was also the position of J.N. Andrews and probably the position of Martin Luther as well – the standard YEC position that also assumes an equally young universe. Any position that assumes the pre-existence of the universe also assumes a form of a gap in time between the first two verses of Genesis.
You are attacking a strawman and as Bill Sorensen has said (and indeed the cited reference I have given from SDAs believe about heaven and earth) this is not the position of any Adventist YEC.
That is because most Young Earth Adventists believe in some form of the gap theory where some portions of the universe pre-existed the creation week – in line with many statements to this effect from Ellen White and the Bible.
I would also be surprised if any would think that God’s dwelling place was created Oct 4004 BC but they certainly would affirm the Biblical statement that the earth sun moon and stars (likely the milky way galaxy) was created in the creation week. I suspect if you removed the milky way you would effectively see no stars by the naked eye.
Some Adventists believe that the Milky Way Galaxy was created during creation week while others believe that only the solar system was created during this time.
As far as objects that are visible outside of the Milky Way, they are relatively rare, of course, but there are a few exceptions. A star in Cassiopeia is just visible by the naked eye under ideal conditions and, in dark skies and with good vision, it is possible to see the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies. In the Southern Hemisphere, one can also see the Small Magellanic Cloud and the Large Magellanic Cloud – both are “companion” galaxies to the Milky Way, and as such, are outside our galaxy, and visible to the naked eye.
I would be very surprised if modern YEC of other religious persuasion went any further than affirming that plain biblical statement of what was created.
For someone who claims to know so much about this topic, you evidently haven’t read much from AiG or CRI or other such YEC organizations. They strongly argue that the entire universe is young and that the whole thing was created, by God, during the creation week of Genesis. For example, consider the following passage from an ICR essay:
“The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that “it was so” on the very day of their creation (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word “star” (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of “star” as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time.
This concept raises several questions. First, does this not mean that God—like some magician—is intentionally deceiving us by making things appear to be older than they actually are? The question really goes back to the matter of intent: did God intend to fool us, or did He intend primarily to make things fully functional but we are fooled only because we view them with certain uniformitarian assumptions? Therefore, while it is true that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, I think we do better to speak of the creation of a fully functional universe that, as a secondary feature, merely gives the appearance of age.”
http://www.icr.org/article/214/
Notice the argument that the entire “fully functional universe” was created on Day 4 of creation week.
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.
