Comment on Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’ by Ken.
Dear Inge and Wes
Sean’s Quote
“Our understanding of truth does in fact change over time as does our understanding of the weight of evidence in support of that “Present Truthâ€. The SDA Church recognizes the progressive nature of human understanding of truth. What did it for my grandfather may not be enough given the additional information that is known today…”
My Quote
“What will Man’s understanding of God be in a thousand years time.”
Hmmmm…see some parallels there folks? If truth is a moving target why pour the concrete of faith around one’s ontological feet? Is Sean progressing or stuck in a YLC paradigm? Is Erv progressing or stuck in a progressive Adventist paradigm. Am I progressing or stuck in an existentialist/agnostic paradigm. I don’t know, in which response Wes will ‘undoubtly’ see the irony.
Why is truth progressive but faith fixed? Why did mankind proceed from polytheism to monotheisn? How did the Nicene Creed come about long after the death of Christ? Why did Martin Luther break away the Catholic Church? Why did the Church of England emerge( Henry’s appetite for the ladies or a missive from God?) Why are progressive Adventists trying to marry the concept of an old earth and long life into a less literal understanding of the biblical account of origins? Why is Sean valiantly trying to marry YLC with empirical evidence to his his deep rooted conviction to a recent life and the writings of EGW? Is this all divinely inspired or maybe just maybe the social constructs of Man?
Inge’s Quote
” ‘Said like a true social evolutionist. 😉 You are giving away your deeply embedded bias here. 🙂 And that’s going farther than most evolutionary biologists who do not necessarily subscribe to social evolution.”
Do I see an evolution of religion. I do. Is it a bias or based on observations? Well we can’t change the facts of what has happened or cloak the dispute of origins in the Adventist community can we? Are schisms in religious institutions inevitable when strong leaders challenge or pull the doctrinal threads apart? If ‘Present Truth’ is evolving which faith faction is right, if any?
Inge forgive me, if this is bias rather than observation. Does it mean that any one particular iteration of faith is right and all others wrong? No, not logically, but as new iterations -or new religions for that matter – grow, the probability of one being right decreases.
Inge’s Quote
“I think you’re doing a great job of providing perspective and asking good questions. :)”
Thank you my friend. I hope so and that I’m not just being a rabble rouser! And thank you very much for your concern for my salvation. I do not take that lightly! I’ve been treated very well on this forum and that speaks highly of Christian, Adventist charity.
Your agnostic, yet hopefully not antagonistic, friend Ken
Table of Contents
Ken Also Commented
Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’
Dear Sean
I was reading this thread again with great admiration for your quest. I’m glad you are challenging mainstream science on behalf of Adventism.
Many of your brethren are worried about this
because they fear the outcome and would rather think solely within the faith box. The claim that human reason can only be valid if consecrated is subjective to the point of dismay.
I think you are on the cutting edge of making Adventism far more plausible for the collective Adventist mind. Too much focus is placed on your conclusions rather than your method.
And any time an apostate secularist like myself opines that a man of faith is using the right method that is a victory for that faith! I hope your brethren and sisteren can see that.
On a lighter note, if you don’t mind me asking, did you name your son after Dr. Kime? Good brush stroke if you did.
All the best in your noble quest.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’
Dear Wes
Reading your posts is sheer delight.
Perhaps all of our respective tents are like Russian dolls, fitting within each other under a meta universe super tent that we cannot perceive. Maybe every once in a while we can peer through a hole in the wall of own tent and look at another?
Like Inge’s personal faith story I enjoyed yours. At 10 was the experience an overwhelming one?
Curious
Ken
Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’
Re Bob’s Quote
“As firmly as the atheist evolutionist begins his observations in nature with firm belief and conviction that “there is no god†— I begin mine with the firm belief and conviction that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and is to be accepted “as it readsâ€.”
Dear Bob
Well stated. I understand the polemic of both extreme positions and the ideological war being waged. I don’t mind you being a warrior for your deeply held convictions and understand the rhetorical tools you feel obliged to use. Atheists do the same.
That’s OK, there is room for all under the world’s big tent. Hopefully everyone can share some ontological popcorn with me and Wes.
Be well my friend
Ken
Recent Comments by Ken
God and Granite Cubes
@ Sean
I enjoyed your article. As I’ve stated before, I think Intelligent Design is a more modern form of Deism and do not think it is irrational. However, as science on an ongoing basis shows what matters are explainable by cause and effect, less is attributable to conscious design. The question of course is what are the limits of science in this regard? For example, will it ever be able to explain First Cause/
Below is a more fulsome quote of Professor Townes, an self acknowledged Protestant Christian. Please note what he has to say about literal creation and evolution. Do you think he is being more reasonable than you on the nature of design?
“I do believe in both a creation and a continuous effect on this universe and our lives, that God has a continuing influence – certainly his laws guide how the universe was built. But the Bible’s description of creation occurring over a week’s time is just an analogy, as I see it. The Jews couldn’t know very much at that time about the lifetime of the universe or how old it was. They were visualizing it as best they could and I think they did remarkably well, but it’s just an analogy.
Should intelligent design be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in schools as religious legislators have decided in Pennsylvania and Kansas?
I think it’s very unfortunate that this kind of discussion has come up. People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there’s no evolution, no changes. It’s totally illogical in my view. Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.
Charles Townes
‘Faith is necessary for the scientist even to get started, and deep faith is necessary for him to carry out his tougher tasks. Why? Because he must have confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mind – in fact his own mind – has a good chance of understanding this order.’
-Charles Townes, writing in “The Convergence of Science and Religion,” IBM’s Think magazine, March-April 1966
Some scientists argue that “well, there’s an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.” Well, that’s a postulate, and it’s a pretty fantastic postulate – it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that’s why it has come out so specially. Now, that design could include evolution perfectly well. It’s very clear that there is evolution, and it’s important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they’re both consistent.
They don’t have to negate each other, you’re saying. God could have created the universe, set the parameters for the laws of physics and chemistry and biology, and set the evolutionary process in motion, But that’s not what the Christian fundamentalists are arguing should be taught in Kansas.
People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they’re saying, “Everything is made at once and then nothing can change.” But there’s no reason the universe can’t allow for changes and plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one. Maybe that’s a bad word to use in public, but it’s just a shame that the argument is coming up that way, because it’s very misleading. “
Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote
“Yes, I am suggesting that our scientists should also be theologians to some degree. I’m also suggesting that our theologians be scientists to some degree as well. There should be no distinct dividing line between the two disciplines…”
Hello Sean
First of all, thank you Holly for your comments. You have always treated me with civility and charity for which I am most grateful.
Secondly, on reflection, I do hope I was not strident or offensive in my recent remarks. I am a guest here and should behave with the utmost respect regarding my Adventist hosts. After all I was proposing the Chair of ID at an ‘Adventist’ institution! What gall and temerity from an agnostic!
However something Dr. Kime said struck a very strange chord in me: that a Chair in ID at Harvard would be a quantum leap ( forward – my edit) while such a Chair would be a step backward at LSU. I’ m very sorry Wes, but for me to honestly investigate reality such double standard is not acceptable.
I am sad today, because I think I’m coming to the end of my Adventist journey. I really did see ID as a sort of bridge between your faith and objective inquiry about a ‘Grand’ Design. (apologies Mr. Hawkings). Oh Wes , perhaps I am ontological Don Quixote after all, comically tilting towards immovable Adventist windmills. 🙁 .
However all is not forlorn because I’ve made excellent friends of the heart here. ;). I won’t forget you.
Good luck in your pursuit of God.
Goodbye
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Wes’s Quote
“. But for a Christian, a great devolution, a great recidivation, a tragic forfeiture, foreclosure, worse. If I were to use the vocabulary of some of our recent posters, I’d not put it as delicately.”
Hi Wes and Sean
I just read again portions on ID from Sean’s website Detecting Design. I am very confused by both of your responses. Why the heck is Sean promoting ID as a scientific theory if this is such a Christian retreat? Perhaps you two differ here? I apologize if I am missing the obvious but I see a tremendous disconnect between what Sean is saying about ID and what he is prepared to do to promote it within the subset of Adventist education.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote
“Public association is one thing. Private association is another. While many do not feel at liberty to publicly associate themselves with our work here (for obvious reasons), most who still believe in SDA fundamentals (and who are aware of the longstanding situation at LSU and other places) feel that our work in providing enhanced transparency for what is being taught to our young people in our schools was/is necessary on some level.”
Hi Sean
The irony here is that those that are supporting institutional enhanced transparency are hiding behind cloaks of anonymity. That’s not how you, I, Wes, Bob Ryan, Wes, Bill Sorenson and many others here behave. Imagine if Jesus hid behind a cloak and didn’t proclaim his nature. What legacy of respect would he have left?
Conviction requires courage period.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Intelligent Design
Gentleman, thanks to all for your fulsome replies.
Yes Wes, I remember your cogent analysis of November 14/11. I appreciared it then and its reiteration now. indeed I was waiting to hear from others especially Sean whose site is named Detecting Design. And, here I agree with Bob, ID
does not necessarily rule out any particular design i. e. fiat
creation ot theistic evolution.
But quite frankly I am disaapointed with Sean’s response, not Sean himself for whom I have deep admiration, because I see this as a step backward. Why? Because if you burn the bridge between science and biblical faith it will not be science that suffers.
Ironically Sean makes many fine, cogent arguments for design in nature so I find his reluctance to promote it formally in Adventist education troubling. Respectfully, I don’t think serious enquiry about reality can creep around the periphery or sneak in through the back door. I’m afraid I see a double standard here.
Yes Wes, I understand why Adventists are nervous on this issue. But if one is seeking the truth about reality one can’t wall it in or burn bridges of enquiry. Wes, perhaps the Hellenic maxim should have not so much: Know thyself, but rather Think for thyself. My park bench in Pugwash is a welcome one but does not feature ontological dividers. It is well designed for truth seekers.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
