Comment on Hope? Slim to none by Ron.
Re: Faith’s statement: And while we may not be saved by giving up Darwinism, we are lost by not doing so.
I am assuming that by Darwinism you mean evolution, and that by evolution, you are referring to the ability of the genetic code to change over time and for organisms to develop more diversity over time.
The problem is that I see organisms evolving all the time, (I have given many references in previous posts) and I don’t see that to be inherently contradictory with the Bible. It appears to me that it is only closed minds that find the two contradictory.
Table of Contents
Ron Also Commented
BobRyan: ancient marine life
Sorry Bob, Nice try, but no credit. According to your interpretation of the Bible, there would not have been any “ancient” marine life to have been deposited on the mountain tops during the flood since the world would only have been a couple of thousand years old at best. Certainly there would not have been the stratified layers we see.
Hope? Slim to none
Oh BTW, here is a good reference for how the Bible writers use the Bible.
http://www.theopedia.com/New_Testament_use_of_the_Old_Testament
Hope? Slim to none
I am surprised by the confusion over faith and science. Faith only applies to what you don’t know. If you know it, then you don’t need faith.
Science only deals with what is or can be known. Basically, if you can’t measure it, then it isn’t science. By definition they are mutually exclusive.
God’s creation in Genesis 1 will never be an issue of science because none of us were there to see it. It will forever be a “faith statement”. As such, discussion of such does not belong in a science class. It belongs in a theology class.
It would be wonderful if the scientific evidence supported the Genesis account, but it just doesn’t. It would be wonderful if we has a good explanation as to why, but we don’t. So, this is an area where we need to be tolerant and non-dogmatic. The church can say it believes creation was 6 days about 6000 years ago if it wants to, but as of the moment there is no scientific evidence to support the claim so it is made by faith.
Yes the churches position is different than the Bible’s position, or we wouldn’t need to “clarify” it with a creed.
It also appears to me that the method of Biblical interpretation the church is using in this case is itself non-biblical. If you look at how Bible writers interpreted the Bible when they quoted it, you see many ways, type, allegory, prophetic etc. but to my knowledge no Bible writer ever quotes the Bible as proof for a scientific fact. There is no Biblical president for using the Bible in this way.
Recent Comments by Ron
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Sean Pitman: No one is demanding that they “get out of the church”. . . . . anti-Adventist views on such a fundamental level.
You don’t see how characterizing a dedicated believer’s understanding of truth as “fundamentally anti-Adventist” would drive them out of the church?
I guess that explains why you don’t see that what you are doing here is fundamentally wrong.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Professor Kent: Nothing saddens me more than the droves who leave the Church when they learn that many of their cherished beliefs regarding this evidence don’t hold up so well to scrutiny.
I agree. I am sure that Sean and Bob don’t mean to undermine faith in God, but every time they say that it is impossible to believe in God and in science at the same time, I feel like they are telling me that any rational person must give up their belief in God, because belief in God and rationality can’t exist in the same space. Who would want to belong to that kind of a church?
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Sean Pitman: and have little if anything to do with the main point of their prophetic claims
And by analogy, this appears to be a weak point in the creation argument. Who is to decide what the main point is?
It seems entirely possible that in trying to make Gen. 1 too literal, that we are missing the whole point of the story.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Regarding falsifying the existence of God through the miraculous:
While it is true that one can’t falsify the existance of God and the Biblical miracles at a philosophical level, it seems to me that it is possible to falsify it at a practical level. For instance prayer for healing. How many families who pray for a miracle for a loved one in the Intensive Care Unit receive a miracle?
While the answer to that question doesn’t answer the question of the existence of God at a philosophical level, it does answer the question at a practical level. After 36 years of medical practice I can say definitively that at a practical level when it comes to miracles in the ICU, God does not exist. Even if a miracle happens latter today, it wouldn’t be enough to establish an expectation for the future. So at a practicle level it seems it is possible level to falsify the existence od God, or at least prove His nonintervention which seems to me to be pretty much the same thing at a functional level.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Sean Pitman:
Sean, what is your definition of “Neo-darwinism” as opposed to “Darwinism” as opposed to “evolution”?
