Education is Overrated
by Stephen Foster
The reception of officially formatted and sanctioned information is one thing; education is another.
What is considered the source or authority from which information is derived and measured is critical. This, I submit, is the difference between education and officially formatted information.
Either human beings invented God or God invented human beings. If human beings invented God, then human knowledge and human intelligence are the authorities and means by/with which information is derived, compared, assessed, and measured. If God invented human beings, then God—and revealed and/or documented information about God—are the appropriate authoritative means by/with which information is derived compared, assessed, and measured.
This line of reasoning is troublesome to agnostics and those who attempt to occupy some middle ground; or split the difference.
The middle ground—as to whether human knowledge is the authority or whether divine revelation is the authority—is that while God may exist, He hasn’t revealed much; and that which He has revealed is discoverable by scientific methodology, apart from inspiration.
The more firmly one believes this and the more committed one is to the idea that scientific discovery essentially interprets revelation (and/or, the more one opposes the concept that inspired revelation trumps scientific discovery), the more important the role of scientific discovery appears to become in shaping one’s worldview.
Perhaps we can all agree that the purpose of education and of scientific discovery is to gain an understanding of why things are as they are; and/or why some things are not as they appear to be. Understanding ourselves, our world, and our universe is the goal.
Information without understanding is not intelligence and knowledge without understanding is not wisdom. “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding” (and) “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.” (Proverbs 4: 7, Psalm 111: 10) These two verses of scripture point to a relationship between wisdom and understanding.
There are no less than nine other passages in the Bible—eight of them in what the Apostle Paul referred to as “scripture,” the other in his letter to the Colossians—that contain the concepts of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding; all of which have the same theme of the Holy Spirit teaching.
“The fear of the Lord giveth wisdom: out of His mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.”(Proverbs 2:6) “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” (Proverbs 9: 10) “For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God…” (Colossians 1: 9, 10) These three—wisdom, knowledge, and understanding—are the Scriptural pillars of education. They are inseparably linked and only accessible via respectful acknowledgment and worship of God. These educational pillars are established by God for the expressed purpose of providing “knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding” to those who recognize the need to seek and ask. “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. (James 1:5)
Without an acknowledgement that God is the authoritative Source of all wisdom, knowledge, and understanding education does not begin. Where education has not begun, it does not exist. The mere gathering or accumulation of officially formatted information—otherwise known as formal education—is overrated because it is an imposter. It masquerades as education; it is commonly referred to as education, but it is ultimately fraudulent.
I think I know what you are trying to say, but I am not sure, which is why this is the only one of at least 5 replies I have started that is posted. If you are saying education that doesn't recognise God as the source of all truth is of little value, I agree. If you are saying that true education that recognises God as the source of all truth is somehow based on a literal reading of the Bible – which is I think the thought that lurks somewhere behind all this – then I guess it will come as no surprise that I don't agree. If your point is that in some way formal education and believing in God are incompatible, then you have completely lost me.
Even secular educators spend a fair bit of time worrying about the number of people who are gaining information without any gain in knowledge or wisdom. We do need a context in which to evaluate information and ask 'what does this mean and what is its value?' I believe God is a big part of that context. But so are many other things. The fear of God is only the beginning of wisdom, it isn't the sum total of wisdom.
I probably don't need to add this, but I still believe you are not giving due weight to the need to understand and interpret what is in the Bible, nor to the contribution that human knowledge (and wisdom) can (and must) make to that process.
Well, this much is certain, I am not saying—in any way—that “formal education and believing in God are incompatible.”
What I am saying is that formal education devoid of the notion that God is the Creator, and the Source of all life, knowledge, wisdom and understanding is not education; but is in fact miseducation. This miseducation is most commonly mistaken for education, and as such, is vastly overrated; because it is not the real thing.
I’m unclear as to what you mean by a literal reading of the Bible. Were Daniel and the Hebrew youth literally delivered from a fiery furnace, did Daniel actually interpret Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, was he literally delivered from a lion’s den, did Elijah literally pray down fire from heaven, did Jesus literally raise Lazarus from the dead, did Saul literally encounter Jesus on the road to Damascus? (I won’t go on.)
The rub is do we agree on that which requires exegesis versus that which is recorded for us to literally believe?
The larger point for skeptics and agnostics alike is that unless you begin with the understanding that God is to be acknowledged as the Creator and reverenced as the Source and Sustainer of life, then you can’t begin to gain any wisdom.
I would argue every part of the Bible needs exegesis and interpretation before it can be understood and applied, even if in the end we decide that the text in question should be understood literally. A literal text may, in the context of the whole Bible, require a non-literal application. A good example is Genesis 1. I agree it was intended to be read as if it were a diary entry of what happened each day. So, therefore read literally. But if we find reasons – either in the Bible or elsewhere (and I know you will disagree with that 'elsewhere') – that it may not actually report a literal event, then we may be justified in interpreting and applying it non-literally. I am not yet convinced in this case that this is true. I am convinced in the case of Job and Jonah that, while the text shoud be read literally (ie, as if it is a factual account) it should not be interpreted or applied literally. Your point that the Bible is authoritative for Christians is not in dispute as far as I am concerned, just how that functions in real life. I also have no objection to the idea that 'the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom' as long as you don't intend to dismiss the knowledge gained and provided by non-believers.
Stephen, are you serious? The texts you cite God is not speaking first person. God does not appear to speak in the first person in the bible, but humans speak for him. How can anyone garner "wisdom" from a God that does not speak for itself? My lab and collaborators carry out biomedical research and we are contributing to the body of biomedical science. There are educated people who struggle with the notion of a God as defined by Christianity and other religions. Maybe Spinoza is right? He rejects a God created by man in his own image to be used for mans own purposes. Do we look to the bible for advancement in science and medicine? If our curiosity begins and ends with the bible we would still be sitting around healing pools waiting for the angel to stir the waters so we could be healed. I wonder if you are frustrated that SDA higher education has done to good of a job. Education allows us to use language to question even our most closely held beliefs. What is wrong with that?
Doctorf,
With all due respect, this blog was not meant or designed to have relevance for either atheists or for people who are neither Christian nor Jewish insofar as their individual religious persuasion is concerned.
For you to suggest that God did not speak in first person in the Bible is a denial of the entire historicity of the Person of Jesus Christ. This is, of course, your prerogative, but many of us believe that Jesus did exist and is accurately quoted, even if by second hand account, in the gospels.
Needless to say, Jesus is quoted in The Acts of the Apostles and The Revelation of Jesus Christ by its writers. Obviously the key is whether or not you consider Jesus to have been God.
If you are Jewish, then you are likely to believe that God directly spoke to Moses (and to Samuel, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Malachi for that matter).
If you are an atheist, then none of this will likely make any sense.
There is nothing wrong with education giving us the tools for examination of beliefs. There is a problem in thinking that we are smarter than God, or in concluding that God is a human invention.
Stephen,
Respectfully, the hisoricity of Jesus Christ is pretty flimsy when one reads Dan Barker's works. He points out that none of the historians of the time mention this transformational figure. Why? Maybe the "evidence" is lacking? The philosophy espoused by the figurative Jesus in the NT I have no quarrel with at all. But, the "literal" Jesus? I think that is a matter of debate.
As you might well imagine, I could not care less what Dan Barker might have to say on a given topic. However I am interested in what you have to say, for what it’s worth.
If you are suggesting—and I think you are—that Jesus may not have actually have lived at all, then although I am interested in what you have to say, it is practically impossible to take seriously whatever it is you say.
So do me the favor of helping me to understand what your motivation is in trying to convince those who frequent this site that not only does God probably not exist, not only is Jesus’ divinity fraudulent, but that Jesus may not have ever existed. What is your motivation?
Stephen Foster,
I wouldn't get too excited in your response. Doctorf if very likely right. I tend to agree with him.
Hi Chris,
Do I really sound excited? I am more intrigued than excited. Now, I am very intrigued. Since you are a Christian, perhaps I misunderstand you in this regard, perhaps not; so “help me.”
Are you really now telling me that you “tend to agree with” Doctorf that Jesus may not ever have actually existed?
I wouldn’t want to misunderstand or mischaracterize.
Stephen Foster,
🙂 Intrigued. mmm.
From my verse below with relevant part in bold:
"No longer arbitrary place n color, Mega picture endless border.
Limits now are questions asked, Color splashes truth unmasked.
Some were sad some were grand, Standing now survey our land.
Pixels in picture beyond belief, Set in universe in sharped relief."
I will go where evidence viewed with common sense and humility leads.
Maybe it’s a cultural thing Chris, or maybe it’s me being so left brained and uncreative; but I didn’t understand your poem when I first read it and really don’t understand it any better now.
Please, just tell me in plain English what you are saying; if you would.
I did: I will go where evidence viewed with common sense and humility leads.
As for what the poem is saying. I was brought up in an environment over which I had no choice innitially and limited during childhood. Then I realized life was a bigger picture. The border or limit is my willingness to ask questions and honestly seek answers.
Those answers unmask truth. Some truths identify with what I already knew; some shows I was in error.
The universe is now the backdrop to the scope of questions one can ask and what shapes my view of life.
Cheers
Believing that a man named Jesus existed is worlds apart from believing that a man named Jesus was the Son of God. Two contemporary Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, barely mention him, but did not see him.
Whether he was divine, and all the other attributes given him are strictly a matter of belief. I may believe in King Arthur or Robin Hood as they are part of the great mythic tales of England; but no one has yet been able to give proof of when or where they existed, but only that the stories about them have lasted for hundreds of years. Believing in Santa Claus does not mean he is a literal, person living at the North Pole, but a figure and symbol of our history.
Muslims believe that Jesus was one of the greatest prophets; but they do not believe that he is divine in the way that Christians do.
Faith can never be verified and is a futile task and a fool's errand. Why should anyone need to convince others of his faith or belief in Jesus? Isn't it sufficient for you that you have accepted him? Is your faith so fragile that the more who agree with you the more surety you feel?
The essay's title is most confusing. The writer is pushing an idea and couched it in language that is far afield of education.
The last statement invalidates everything written previously:
"Without an acknowledgement that God is the authoritative Source of all wisdom, knowledge, and understanding education does not begin."
This is an outrageous, unfounded, biased conclusion based on nothing but a personal opinion. Millions of highly educated people throughout history have contributed greatly to our treasury of knowledge who may, or may not have acknowledged God. Their personal belief has nothing to do with knowledge, unless one dismisses all the knowledge obtained by other than dedicated believers. Even the Bible recognized that there were great men who built amazing structures, many which are still standing, but who did not acknowledge God. Actually, "belief in God" has halted education for thousands of years.
This is a feeble attempt to reinforce the idea that the Bible and knowledge of God, equals wisdom, but God is the beginning of wisdom, only some–not all read the Bible "correctly," and who has such hubris to suggest that he does?
Elaine and Kevin –
I don't hear Stephen arguing here for a particular interpretation of the Bible, though I have learned long ago that it is dangerous for either of us to try and interpret the other. I can't speak for Bhuddists, Muslims, Hindus, or any other religions. But as a Christian, who believes that God has revealed Himself to me through a particular epistemological pathway, I cannot allow the possibility that He may have revealed Himself to others through different pathways to dilute or attenuate His word to me. God didn't ask everyone to build an ark; He didn't ask everyone to circumcise their households. And He is surely not calling everyone to the faith walk to which He calls me. But His word and His command to those who accept His invitation to enter into covenant relationhip with Him was and is absolute. The possibility – albeit remote – that I might have been happily married to someone other than my wife doesn't render the commitments I make within that realtionship any less absolute.
We can talk, and do talk, at great length about what God has said and how He is calling us as a Church and as individuals. But What Stephen reminds us of – and I agree with him – is that, for Christians, the Bible is authoritative. And it tells us things that those of us who love education, and place great weight in intellectual exchanges, don't like to hear. Stephen has just scratched the surface of what the Bible has to say about wisdom and knowledge that does not begin with a position of surrender and commitment to the God revealed in scripture. From a Biblical perspective, wisdom and knowledge that are not grounded in faith rank right up there with riches as pathways to the Kingdom. Remember, it was eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that doomed human kind and required a Savior.
It is not hubris, Elaine. It is humble recognition of our place in the universe. I don't think Stephen's blog is written for agnostics and atheists, because the Bible is not authoritative for them. But we Christians believe that their perspective is not a position of the head so much as it is a posture of the heart. "The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God."
I almost wish I had said this.
Nathan
I can agree with what you say, but I am still supicious that Stephen intends to lead the discussion to other conclusions. We don't disagree on the Bible being authoritative, just on how it is authoritative and how it should be interpreted and applied. Specifically on how human knowledge and wisdom is involved in interpreting the Bible before applying it authoritatively. I am always supicious that when I agree with his point of view on one issue – which I often do – that he will concude I therefore must accept his view on the Bible in other points. That may be unfair, but maybe not.
"It is the work of true education to . . . train the youth to be thinkers, and not mere reflectors of other men's thought."
Unfortunately this is much like Chesterton's point about Christianity. To paraphrase: "Teaching the youth to be thinkers has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found troublesome and not tried."
One of the tensions within Adventism is that we are committed to every person studying the Bible forthemselves and coming to their own conclusion, without pressure from tradition or the church hierarchy, while recognising that we need unity on at least central beliefs in order to function as a community. Our commitment to unity has at times led us to downplay our commitment to individual study and thought. This unfortunately seems to be such a time. In the long run, it will have few benefits for our church.
Excellent post, Ed, agreed wholeheartedly.
" I cannot allow the possibility that He may have revealed Himself to others through different pathways to dilute or attenuate His word to me."
Saying the Bible is "authoritative" needs explanation. In what areas of life is it authoritative? Science? Medicine? Civil affairs? National relationships? If the Bible should be the last authoritative word, these would return us to the stone age. Such all-encompassing claims need modifying as if taken at face value, we we reject all the information and yes, knowledge that has been gained since humans lived on the earth. Nor would there be a need for any other book except the Bible.
Claiming authority for the Bible opens up a nasty can of worms: whose interpretation? Haven't the thousands of Christian denominations produced sufficient evidence, all claiming the authority of the Bible for their beliefs?
Denying authority to the Bible opens more cans of worms. We are better off dealing with the hard questions about Biblical authority rather than simply denying it.
O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge–Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. 1 Timothy 6:20,21 NKJV
Kevin,
Please illustrate how many ways the Bible can be used as an authority. Are there areas in which the Bible is insufficient as an authority? If so, what would they be? When there are two different opinions in a church, both opinions use the Bible, then what?
Doctorf made this astute statement on another thread:
" Adventists do not utilize God in anyway in the rational practice of medicine. On a statisitical basis evidence based medicine can and does defeat life threatening pathologies. God does not appear to be doing anything of value in the area of human physical suffering but modern medicine does."
It is not at all difficult to think of many other areas in which the Bible is not authoritative. Only in timeless principles, should its authority be invoked. How authoritative should the Bible be used in international relations today? In settling disputes should the Torah be the authoritative standard? In settling the current discussion regarding women's ordination, how should the Bible settle this disagreement? It is used for either side, just as the Bible is on many other church opposing opinions. Please give specific, rather than general
ideals.
I see the Bible as having individual and corporate authority for Christians. Therefore each community and individual has to answer those questions. I don't believe in a one-size-fits-all answer that can be imposed on others. I see the authority of Ellen White in the same way: it is up to the SDA church, and groups within it, to decide what authority they will give her writings. Authority is not some nebulous 'thing' that is just out there, it is part of a relationship between people, so there is no authority where it is not recognised. The SDA church can claim authority in any area it wishes, but you, as a non-member can ignore it, and members can challenge its claims to authority. In the end, any authority only has the authority that people grant it. I personally would start with the position that the Bible does have authority in the life of most Christians [one African church denies it any authority] and then start discussing what authority and in what areas. You don't have to start in the same place.
The fundamental flaw in Stephen's post is that it considers education to be a matter of authority. It is not: in fact, I teach my science education students that appeal to authority is to some extent a failure in education. What we should ideally be doing in education is equipping students to find and evaluate evidence. They should *not* rely on the word of authorities, but should seek the evidence for themselves.
This is true education – and Ellen White's book 'Education' is right on board with this notion. Dueling authorities, as set up in Stephen's post, have little to do with education – and much with indoctrination.
David, Ed, Elaine, et al.
EGW did have that part right, about teaching the young people "to be thinkers, not mere reflectors…."
When I have taught, as David has said so well, my goal was to empower "students to find and evaluate evidence."
I see the goal of education as assisting students in learning how to learn. "Learning to learn" equips people to live.
While I think learning our "memory verses" as we SDAs did as children is probably a good exercise in cognitive discipline, we really should at some point move past that into learning how to generate and evaluate information–and that is really the purpose of science.
The quoting or paraphrasing of Ellen White on education (from her book Education, “It is the work of true education to develop this power, to train the youth to be thinkers, and not mere reflectors of other men's thought.”) out of the context for purposes of suggesting that becoming independent thinkers means that we become open to skepticism, agnosticism, or atheism is akin opposing civil justice activism while quoting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “content of their character” line from his March on Washington “I Have a Dream” speech.
Why not also quote or paraphrase the preceding idea that “Since God is the source of all true knowledge, it is, as we have seen, the first object of education to direct our minds to His own revelation of Himself”? Or better yet, “The Holy Scriptures are the perfect standard of truth, and as such should be given the highest place in education. To obtain an education worthy of the name, we must receive a knowledge of God, the Creator, and of Christ, the Redeemer, as they are revealed in the sacred word.”
But citing anyone, even God as the authority diminishes our own God-given reasoning ability. Never should our minds be given to any authority, but in freely choosing that authority not by educating minds to accept that, or any other authority. We cannot freely choose if we are to trust any "authority" as the decision maker.
Minds can only be convinced by examining all the possible, even conflicting opinions and this is the meaning of true education as Joe has written. This is the problem and fault of any religious education: it is biased toward a particular belief and either disregards or gives little credence to other beliefs and opinions. Choices can never be made if there is only one possibility.
“…citing anyone, even God as the authority diminishes our own God-given reasoning ability.” This is the mother of non sequiturs, Elaine!
If God gave us our reasoning ability, how is it possible to diminish this ability by citing the Source of it??
“To restore in man the image of his Maker, to bring him back to the perfection in which he was created, to promote the development of body, mind, and soul, that the divine purpose in his creation might be realized–this was to be the work of redemption. This is the object of education, the great object of life.
Love, the basis of creation and of redemption, is the basis of true education. This is made plain in the law that God has given as the guide of life. The first and great commandment is, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind.’ Luke 10:27. To love Him, the infinite, the omniscient One, with the whole strength, and mind, and heart, means the highest development of every power. It means that in the whole being– the body, the mind, as well as the soul–the image of God is to be restored.
Like the first is the second commandment—‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’ Matthew 22:39. The law of love calls for the devotion of body, mind, and soul to the service of God and our fellow men. And this service, while making us a blessing to others, brings the greatest blessing to ourselves. Unselfishness underlies all true development. Through unselfish service we receive the highest culture of every faculty. More and more fully do we become partakers of the divine nature. We are fitted for heaven, for we receive heaven into our hearts.
Since God is the source of all true knowledge, it is, as we have seen, the first object of education to direct our minds to His own revelation of Himself. Adam and Eve received knowledge through direct communion with God; and they learned of Him through His works. All created things, in their original perfection, were an expression of the thought of God.”
ED 15-17
Of course, in reality, it isn’t possible to diminish our reasoning ability by yielding and acknowledging the authority of its Source.
Citing the Red Books is not independent, but dependent thinking. God has given us free will and choices as the very first gift to humans. Failing to use our own reason, and it may be wrong, does not abrogate the liberty he has given us to consider and investigate before accepting any authority, including God's.
While SDA committees meet and pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance, they are not deferring to God's judgment, but are using the powers that God gave them. Sometimes they are wrong; sometimes they are right, but God never interferes with man's free will. He has given us, made in his image, to have the freedom to choose, and failing to use it, we lose it.
It shouldn't need to be said that when making decisions to let God take authority, is not the procedure followed by our church leaders: they make the decisions and do not use the Urim and Thumum nor throw lots as they once did.
Please given an example of a decision that was turned over to God and he directed in exact detail what should be done–in a very complex situation.
One current example: the question of women's ordination. Both sides are using God as authority. How is that working?
Elaine,
Although I retain the prerogative to do use them, I understand how the little red books are a turn off to some. That is one reason why I seldom quote them or refer to them in the blogs that I write; and didn’t quote or reference Education in this blog.
You may note that someone else did. This made my use of EGW’s book on education fair game for this topic; as well as this thread (although again, it would have been anyway).
I certainly know of examples of (thinking and) thinkers who acknowledge the authority of Scripture—and nonetheless consistently think, act, and write outside of any box others want to put them in—without challenging the concept that God is the Ultimate Authority.
Timo,
As you are aware, I do not follow your train of thought or way of thinking; but am cognizant of your feelings toward me/mine. There’s not much either of us can do about this. (This is something I have to accept.)
Very thought provoking piece Brother Foster.
David Geelan said, "The fundamental flaw in Stephen's post is that it considers education to be a matter of authority. It is not: in fact, I teach my science education students that appeal to authority is to some extent a failure in education. What we should ideally be doing in education is equipping students to find and evaluate evidence. They should *not* rely on the word of authorities, but should seek the evidence for themselves."
Evidence-based education can only take one so far before one wallows in the mire of uneducated speculation. At some point faith is necessary. But faith is not based on blind speculation; it is, as Paul so eloquently stated, The substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen. By leaving God and His word out of the picture, one will inevitably misinterpret the evidence–as is seen in the debate over creation vs. evolution.
"But citing anyone, even God as the authority diminishes our own God-given reasoning ability."
Elaine, that makes no sense at all. How can citing the ultimate authority interfere with our reasoning ability? Even the wisest man who ever lived cited God as his ultimate authority. Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. Eccl. 12:13.
It might be worth noting that:
(a) I mentioned EGW and 'Education' in passing in my post, but it was not the crux of my argument.
(b) In doing so, I was definitely not 'proof-texting' with the good old 'not reflectors of other men's thoughts' quote (didn't mention it): I have read the whole book multiple times, worked with it, thought about it and incorporated it into my own teaching practice.
It remains a side issue to the main point made, though, which has not really been satisfactorily taken up: teaching students to *think* is the goal of education.
It is when thinking is considered dangerous that sentiments like 'education is overrated' get purchase.
Which to me makes no sense – if the truths of a doctrine are robust, then thinking, searching, seeking evidence will support the doctrine. It is only a weak, shaky doctrine that needs to close down the minds of its adherents and enjoin them to ignorance to protect itself.
Thanks, David for this gem:
"If the truths of a doctrine are robust, then thinking, searching, seeking evidence will support the doctrine."
Does mathematics need an "authority"? Does the natural world need an "authority"? There are certain facts that stand alone and are self-evident. It is only those areas where opinions differ that authority is desired. When this occurs, it is usually because the positions are weak and unable to stand alone without claiming some higher authority.
When we were little, our higher authority was our parents or teachers and we, unlearned, referred to them. At times we seek the opinions of those we admire for possible advice on a troubling matter, but we are still responsible for those decisions and cannot pass the buck to some authority figure. What is the difference in those who claim "the devil made me do it" from God made me do it?
When discussing religious matters, there is nothing more revealing than to observe two oppositing positions, each claiming that "God is on my side," and then proceed to quote a text or two; or even worse "God has shown me."
“What is the difference in those who claim "the devil made me do it" from God made me do it?”
Generally speaking, as to the difference, what they end up doing is a good indicator.
A good indicator is who made them do it? Does not say much for parts of the Old Testament does it? Perhaps Jesus meant more than we think in John 8:44! Religion gives people licence to do evil too often
But of course, true education, the acquisition of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding isn’t overrated. The recognition that God is the authoritative Source of these is indispensible to their acquisition my friend; that is the point.
Teaching students to think is the road. Teaching students to understand is the destination.
(In the interest of full disclosure, it is currently my privilege to serve on the Oakwood University Board of Trustees. At Oakwood, true education is a regular occurrence; and though it is no doubt appreciated, it is (if anything) nonetheless vastly underrated.
Oh, and by the way, the idea that God is the Source of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding is not a unique denominational doctrine, the last time I checked.
The history of religion has demonstrated that bad people do bad things; but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. Some of the worst crimes have been perpetrated under the guise of religion, beginning with some of the oldest history as recorded in the Bible–and ending in the Bible. After all, if God is going to resurrect the dead just so they can be killed in a massive barbecue, how can that be viewed other than a religious act? Doesn't that indicate that God reverts to the OT view of killing, often without warning?
What would Christianity be without the fear of hell?
Interesting rant, Elaine, but what does it prove? First of all there are no good people. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. And only God can change them for the better. And who is responsible for crimes which are done in the name of religion? You can't blame God or the Bible. The blame lies at the door of Satan, of course. The fact that some people who profess to serve God are really serving the devil is also not God's fault, or the fault of religion. All people belong to one religion or another. They either serve God or they serve the devil. They make gods out of themselves or other objects; or they worship the one true God. You've shown that you completely misunderstand the character of God, even though it is clearly portrayed in Scripture.
And there's nothing wrong with the concept of a heaven to win and a hell to shun.
…and I guess the evil that God commanded or God committed (according to the Bible), is not evil at all, because God commanded or committed it, right?
Scripture shows God killing almost every human being on earth, ordering multiple genocides, ordering the slaughter of babies, ordering the keeping of virgins as bounty from war and so on.
In what way has Elaine shown that she 'completely misunderstand[s] the character of God… clearly protrayed in Scripture'?
I am of the growing opinion that most of the OT is thinly veiled paganism. So, glad I do not have to grant it authority and face the impossible task of justifying it.
David, your comments are indicative of a lack of faith that God is good and just. When all the dust settles at the end of the judgment, do you really think that there will be anyone who will be able to legitimately charge Him with unfairness? I don't profess to understand all the reasons for the things God does, but I have enough faith to believe that what He does will work out for the best in the end.
Can you conceive of *any* 'bigger picture' that would make these actions morally right if done by a human being? I can't.
How then can our moral arbiter and guarantor be held to a *lesser* moral standard than his creations.
Sorry, you are simply assuming that which you wish to prove, and begging the question.
Anyway, we have wandered some distance afield from the topic of this discussion, and are unlikely to find common ground on this, so perhaps we'll leave it to the readers to make up their own minds based on what we've said?
Stephen, just a carry on note from my last point adding to David Geelans comment:
My education began when I recognized the Bible was not the authority around which to shape all my learning. That and meditation were the beginning of understanding for me in many ways.
(The fact of the matter is that, regretfully, some of you have vividly illustrated the point, and may not realize it.)
Well, so it appears that God’s character is on trial after all; isn’t it?
Suffice it to say, that God has the benefit, luxury, and/or responsibility of knowing what would happen under every conceivable set of circumstances; and is working things out for His purposes, His glory, and our best—under conditions of our free will. Therefore, believe it or not, we may not understand everything He does or permits.
Under such circumstances and conditions—believe it or not—His ways are not ours. (In my previous blog, The Lesson, I recounted an object lesson we learned in childhood that illustrated this point for me; although I must admit that I didn’t really appreciate it until later in life.)
One of the good things about a blog such as this is that it separates those who accept the Bible as sacred text from those who see the Bible as an arbitrary collection of diverse ancient religious writings, with no binding agent or cohesiveness other than the strained rationalizations of those who have agreed to call them sacred.
Those who subject scripture to the rational grid of 21st Century "enlightenment" have to begin by throwing the story of The Fall, as well as the rest of Genesis, under the bus. For in the book of Genesis, Jaweh is a god who intersects and supervenes the natural order, the moral order, and the cultural order of rational human beings. If there is one message that is a dominant thread in Genesis, carried throughout scripture, it is that humans cannot bootstrap their way to God; God is not an extension of the highest human reasoning; and God is not subject to the laws that govern the natural world.
When I reflect on what seems to me to be this inescapable truth, I go back to wondering about a question Stephen asked in an earlier blog – "Where do those of you who reject scripture as authoritative get your notion of God?" As I recall, Stephen actually asked the narrower question of where you get the idea of a kind, loving, and merciful God. But I'm wondering what you mean when you talk about God as a real being if you don't see the Bible as authoritative.
Actually, I believe Stephen's question was more along the lines of how we could accept the Bible's view of a loving God, and not accept the absolute authority of every statement in the Bible as read literally if we read those statements literally. As you know, some of us accept the authority of the Bible but not Stephen's view of how it should work. If he were merely pointing out that it is illogical to accept the Bible as a source for information on God but not other ideas, I would agree. It is his insistence that we must take the Bible 'as it reads' wihtout interpretation that I cannot accept. Accepting that the Bible is inspired and authoritative is a separate – but related – question to how it should then be understood. I see no reason to state that we accept the Bible because our experience with both it and God leads us to do so. That isn't subject to proof, but neither is love 🙂
Nathan,
I submit to you and Stephen that you and he keep harping on this "question" because it is easier to ask where, "we" "I" etc whoever you are talking about, get an idea about God from if we don't accept the authority of the Bible, and thus avoid the question you need to address:
Once again, please show me a posteriori why these truths you state are "inescapable truth". Obviously, you will need to avoid the "strained rationalizations".
Why keep on challenging "others" view of God, or "failure" to accept "Biblical Authority" IF you cannot, or at least have not yet, shown why your position is defendable.
Please, go ahead and show me.
I'm not sure I understand your question here, Chris. My position on Biblical authority is very much a faith position. I'm not challenging anyone's view of God, nor do I presume that I could through reason alone defend my view of God or the authoritativeness of the Bible. Mine is a question more than a challenge: You speak as if you believe in the God revealed in scripture. Yet you seem to reject much of scripture as sacred text. I just don't get it. I don't see how one can make his own reason be the supreme arbitor of God and scripture, and still be left with anything other than a manmade god.
Believe me, Chris, I have nothing to prove to you. For me, knowledge and wisdom which are not grounded in knowledge of and relationship with God are vain. If you concede that this is a very Biblical world view in both the Old and New Testaments, then, in order to reject it, you must create a rather Picassoesque God. I don't think it is fair to argue that accepting what the Bible says about wisdom and knowledge Bible is bibliolatry, and perhaps you are not arguing that. But it comes across to me that way.
I agree with you that we have to begin with the observable world. I do not agree that such a world is necessarily measurable or subject to scientific verification. I believe that what we are able to observe depends much more upon what our hearts and minds are conditioned to see than upon what can be empirically validated. This notion is again deeply biblical.
Judgmental, elitist hyperbole, like "incredible", "indoctrinated", "brainwashed", to characterize those who hold opinions with which you disagree is the language of fundamentalism, and it suggests that the user has probably left reason for the realm of feeling. And by the way, I will guarantee you that no one in their right mind, including Dr. Carson, would ever suggest that those who do not accept Biblical authority do not subscribe to a moral belief system.
Nathan,
Words "…like "incredible", "indoctrinated", "brainwashed", to characterize those who hold opinions with which you disagree is the language of fundamentalism, .." On that I agree. You lifted those from a discussion with fundamentalist thinking people. I have no problem meeting them at their own level.
"…And by the way, I will guarantee you that no one in their right mind, including Dr. Carson, would ever suggest that those who do not accept Biblical authority do not subscribe to a moral belief system." Absolutely agreed.
That is different to the basis issue which Emory picked up on and Carson did state, Note:
"How does this happen? What are the consequences of accepting evolutionary views of human origins? How does this affect society and the way we see ourselves?
(Carson) By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate morality and the basis of ethical behavior. For if there is no such thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make everything relative, and there's no reason for any of our higher values….
…Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics, you don't have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your own conscience based on your own desires,,".
Cut it any way you want, I think that makes a different point and is wherein their objection lies. We can play with words all we want. Each to his own I guess.
Cheers
http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html
While you are answering my question above, it may be usefull to read this reply (to you) which I wrote to you on my own thread. Either you missed it, or ignored it, but it has content which deals with some of your last point.
"I've just caught up with this comment.
Are you wrong? Probably more wrong that right, but let me elaborate. (just to confuse you:)
I do see the bible as normative and authoritative in a very different way to EGW. Correct.
I also see the bible as having more to offer relative to most or many other sacred writings.
Of course having said that, (and I can hear Stephen buzzing with questions already, some which I have ignored to date:) let me try to explain a bit more how I see its role. (authority if you like)
As you will agree, the spiritual dimension is hard to quantify. It is hard to explain, and it is certainly next to impossible to "prove". Now draw an imaginary line with scientifically a posteriori demostrable "facts" one end and the spiritual world/dimension the other. At some point along that line science STOPS. It stops because the things claimed for the spiritual dimension are not demonstrable and are not therefore of "interest" to science. (don't confuse this with magesteria)
Observable, measurable data are on the science side/end of that line. Much of it does not even need science to explain or unravel it. I happen to believe that our God given intelligence and reason are to be used. Used in the best possible way and in as wide a context as possible.
I find no reason (except "The Bible Says") to not begin with observable data, followed by science if you like. Where do I end? At the other end of the line! Data and science in the context of reason and intelligence draw from what I observe and understand and are AN authority in making sense of my world. As I move along that line the experience of others in the bible can cast light onto questions in the spiritual dimension. They are AN authority on things pertaining to that quest. It goes without saying if "they" make claims that do not fit the first half of the line, their authority fails on those points. Remember, it has grown out of inspiration within community and their context will have shaped the content. I must draw from it to fit within the understanding and context of my community. Not the other way around. This does not make its authority null and void! It applies it to the context where it is relevant.
If I find spiritual insights in other sacred writings, great. They will also have an impact on my spiritual quest/understanding. Relatively I suspect they are of lesser importance, but I would not be so arrogant as to dismiss them either.
What was my purpose? A key one was to undermine this incredible "worship of the bible" that I see demonstrated here. Whether it is ignorance of how it has really come to us, fear of the alternative, or what, I don't know, but nobody here (again that I've read) can demonstrate why and on what basis the bible should be the first and final authority – let alone why we should worship it as some seem to. To me they reflect this incredibly "indoctrinated", "brain washed" "false" community which is trying to live in the community out of which the bible came rather than using their inteligence to fit the bible into their own community with all the added understanding we have about how and what this life and world are."
I think I pretty strongly disagree with the truth path you lay out here, although it may be that I merely misunderstand you. We all begin life with community, culture, family – not reason or observable data. We are genetically and environmentally preconditioned to observe, process, and make rational sense of what we experience in particular ways, within particular relationships. This is the inescapable a priori reality of the moral world. The fact that our capacity for abstraction and depersonalization of data grows with maturity does not mean that we thereby wipe clean the slate on which our lives have been written. To the extent that we accept and embrace that reality, I believe we will be much more open to the likelihood that our most fundamental truth claims are much more the product of the heart than the mind.
I do not, as you have suggested, Chris, accept only some of the Bible as sacred text. I believe all of scripture is sacred text. How various parts of that sacred text came into existence, were preserved, and became part of what I accept as the sacred canon of scripture are important, but subsidiary, issues. Reason and experience inform, but do not trump, my faith. Together they yield an overwhelming conviction regarding the truth claims revealed in the Bible about the most fundamental issues of human existence – transcendence, relationship, order, freedom, purpose, meaning, to name a few.
That is not to deny the contradictions, inconsistencies, dichotomies, and anthropomorphisms that permeate the Bible. But it seems to me that massaging and "smoothing" the data so that the Bible will fit into the Procrustean bed of contemporary human reasoning understanding is nothing more than a self-delusional exercise in reducing God to rational categories and recreating Him in our own image.
I believe that moral truth claims which do not rest on the foundation of scriptural claims about the nature of man and the nature of God lead to death and destruction. You reject those truth claims which do not submit to what I believe is an iron yoke of humanistic illusions. Your world seems closed to seeing as truly transcendent the divine/human encounters described in the Bible.Your world view must surely reject the traditional Christian view of The Fall. By your reckoning, Adam and Eve should be seen as innocent dupes of a cruel and capricious God – victim heroes who survived the divine holocaust. God gave them reason; then He gave them a non-rational command with no inherent moral significance, that contradicted observable reality. Worst of all, when they used their God-given reason, He punished them and all their progeny. Who could possibly love or respect such a God?
In light of what I have noted above I suggest you take carefull note of two points in the letter:
"Dr. Carson insists on not seeing a difference between science, which is predictive and falsifiable, and religious belief systems, which by their very nature cannot be falsified. "
"Accepting evolution, and the scientific method in general, are not at odds with being moral or religious,…"
Just to avoid you missing the point: apply these two statements to my imaginary line illustration and think about it.
Chris, please help me to know how hard darwinism can be falsified. I have trouble seeing it as Carl Popper did.
Hard evolution can be "at odds with being moral or religious," as religion also can be. We have historical examples in atheist communism. I am reading Sam Harris's little book, "Free Will." He believes as many others that hard evolution implies no free will. Jerry Coyne in an introduction to this book says, "Free will is an illusion so convincing that people refuse to believe that we don't have it." If hard evolution is true how would we know who has the illusion, ID or EV? Whatever we believe is simply the predictive out-comes of blind forces, so nothing is provable or falsifable, for we can't stand apart to see it as it is.
As a non-scientist, my understanding that "falsifiable" has a meaning in science that is not used similarly for all other conditions. Any scientific discovery can be studied, even rejected, and they often are. They must meet objective standards by multiple peer reviews; always with the possibility that future evidence may prove them to be in error.
Now, how can creationism be falsified? What tests would be performed for a one-time event? For this, and many other reasons, Creationism is a very subjective premise; a faith proposition, a belief without objective evidence.
Please explain the statement: "Hard evolution can be at odds with being moral or religious.' Evolution is amoral, neither good nor bad, it is simply an accepted scientific position. Religion claims to have founded morals but that is also wrong. There have been morals in all cultures that were based on living within one's own group or the larger community without attributing to a particular religion or no religion.
Darrel,
Like Elaine, I would like you to unpack your statement about hard evolution/darwinism. Until I get that point I am not sure how I can answer your question about it being "falsified". Makes no sense?
I am still waiting for Nathan to answer my question:
Why keep on challenging "others" view of God, or "failure" to accept "Biblical Authority" IF you cannot, or at least have not yet, shown why your position is defendable.
Yes, Chris, that is very reasonable. By hard
Evolution I mean to distinguish it from what some
call micro evolution–the molecule to man story.
Nathan,
Let me try to pick up another point from your last comment above.
".. You speak as if you believe in the God revealed in scripture. Yet you seem to reject much of scripture as sacred text. I just don't get it. I don't see how one can make his own reason be the supreme arbitor of God and scripture, and still be left with anything other than a manmade god."
I can understand your puzzle somewhat. As you alluded to, at the end of the day I come from the line from one end, where I think we can understand and draw conclusions, and you kind of accept one end of the line, but give the other end greater weight. If I hear you right.
In keeping with Stephen's theme. As I look across human history I see a growing in knowledge and understanding. Where once a lightning bolt was "an act of God", it no longer is seen that way. We can explain it with great reliability I suspect.
I see the Bible as a record of how people have experienced God, or at least believed they have experienced Him. Ultimately, faith is a personal statement. I allow their faith to point a direction, but not dictate it. For me, understanding from the left of the line (observable stuff) is where I begin, and I believe if the Bible writers had lived today they would have expressed their experiences vastly different. What that means to me from their experience is that it is their faith in God that matters – not how they explained or understood it from their world view which was relatively limited in understanding.
Is that me creating a manmade God? Yes. But I put it out there that that is exactly what the Bible is: A record of people's reaching out and trying to understand beyond the dark glass. As has been noted before: God never wrote a single word of the Bible. If (as you and I believe) there is a God out there, there is little difference between a man made God and a man described God (which is the basis of your belief), because it will all be and is described and expressed through human words, eyes, and experience based on their understanding at that point.
Just a few observations. Personal faith, (often expressed in worship) are the ultimate proof to oneself that there is a God. You and I cannot prove that to each other or anyone else, so the source of authority is less important than we might think I suspect.
Nathan you are correct. My question from the earlier blog (“Help Me”) was the more narrow question of how it makes any sense at all to believe the scriptural description of God, of being Creator, loving, all knowing, and all powerful; yet not believe everything else (and/or accept as authoritative) that the source of THIS notion (or concept) of God says about God.
This question renders Chris’s challenge of proof concerning your/our notion, or concept, of God meaningless because it is only the scriptural attributes of Creatorship, benevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence with which this previous question is concerned.
So Chris is mistaken in thinking that we are harping on the question of where he or others get an idea about God, because we already know that they get their idea about God from the Bible; that is IF he and others accept that God is the creative, benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God therein described.
Interpretation is a term that is relevant only if/when authority is established and accepted. If authority can mean anything, then interpretation can mean anything; which actually means “nothing.”
As for the topic of this blog, again there is a presupposition that God is acknowledged as who the Bible says He is; the rest should be “academic.”
Elaine, creation could easily be falsified by
demonstration of “emergence.” creation could
be falsified by demonstration of spontaneous
generations of “Information Systems.”. And there
have been many many attempts to reproduce
this in the lab, all a failure.
In an essay collection entitled Self-Organizing Systems: The Emergence of Order (ed. F. Eugene Yates; Plenum Press, 1987). This worked on the concept of a nonlinear oscillator — and its associated "basin of attraction" — as a model the end-directed, or teleological, feature of biological functions. (A basin of attraction — or "attractor," for short — is a mathematical representation of dynamical behavior as a "trajectory" There have been many attempts to falsify ID and prove emergent systems and then by assosiation hard evolution, but all of these attempts have failed. If any one knows of "peer-reviewed" research showing "emergence" PLEASE let us all know!
Timo,
That makes a whole lot of sense, even at first reading. Will read it some more and perhaps pick up some points.
Darrel,
Your last comment suggests to me that you are to busy "studying the leaf" to see the forrest. There are big issues which point the direction to an answer about macro and micro. Such a focus on minutia imho just clouds what in most things is simple.
Before we get hung up on "emergence", can I ask you one question please?
Explain in the context of the flood the 500 cubic kilometers of salt under the dead sea. (correct my education and give me understanding please?)
Darrel,
Here's a few links you may find useful in checking out the salt under the dead sea. If you are like me, I never heard an evangelist (heard many of them) say anything about the salt under the dead sea:)
http://oldearthmygod.com/where-to/a-pinch-of-salt
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=84c82792-0c03-47ab-8628-0e6fcaf4c312
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1874599708000154
Hey, Chris. I think your avoiding my questions :-} Yes, I am an ID Creationist, so I have little problem with where your going. The forest and trees are very visable; the interesting and critical questions are of origin and mechanism; their history is important, but not so much!
For your next question regarding "the fall" and "deep time" please read my article coming out possibly in the next Atoday
Timo ( a good Australian name, BTW 🙂 have you considered moving to a 'better land'? )
People seem to like things to be simple. Things (and people) are either bad or good, the Bible is either the inerrant, infallible, word-perfect Word of God or it is a man-made fable, Obama is either a secular socialist (if not communist) or a foreign-born Muslim in disguise. If theings are more complicted, then they can't be resolved in a 5 minute section of 'hard-hitting investigative journalism', a 30 minute sit-com or a 45 minute sermon to the satisfaction of those who find paying attention to more than one thought for more than two minutes at a time. (No disparagement meant – someone who scored -5.41 on an attention test when he thought he was doing better than usual wouldn't dare 🙂 Chris, if you read this – I finally failed a test, but I did it with style 🙂 )
What worries me most, are questions like 'if the Bible is not the final authority, then what is?' 'If we can't rely on the Bible, what else can we rely on?' Quite some time ago I was introduced to the concept of 'functional atheism'. If I wanted to go completely insane, I would be tempted to ask for funding to study the conept within our church. Finding examples would be easy.
I suspect my idea of how the Bible works is not far from yours. I see it as God's invitation to a conversation, full of examples of how past conversations have gone, and the results of people's experiments with following and trying to understand God. When we make it God's final word on everything, we not only make him redundant, but we negate his purpose in giving us the Bible.
The 'edit' and 'add comment' buttons really should be better distinguished for those of us who are attentionally challenged – even after we have remembered our medication. Being able to edit our post (even those that weren't accidentally posted) for a short time after posting would be useful. It would save us having to hide in the house for days in shame after spelling 'thing' as 'theing'.
To continue from above: I do believe the Bible is inspired, and that it has (derived) authority. I also agree with Stephen that it is foolish to accept some parts and ignore others. I don't believe that interpreting – whether literally or non-literally – or deciding that certain sections do not fit a particular situation and don't need to be applied, is the same as ignoring the Bible or denying its authority. We have had long discussions over how best to interpret the Bible, but little over what it essentialy is or how it should function within a community of faith that accepts its authority. Those two things will have a huge impact on how it should be interpreted. And I believe they should be based on what we actually see in the Bible, not just a couple of proof texts and sometimes questionable logic. What I would most like to see is God brought back into the process as more than just a bystander to whom we offer a prefunctory (and often ignored thereafter) prayer for assistance before we begin the work.
Scripture, if believed, does not circumscribe or limit God in any way, my brothers.
Scripture describes God as the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creative Spirit of Love and Truth. How in the world—or out of the world—could that possibly limit Him?
If God Himself inspired holy men of His to write about Him and his dealings with this planet; what’s the problem?
The problem may be that we don’t want to accept that this is true.
I heard C.D. Brooks say the following in a sermon this past Sabbath: truth is not popular, truth never changes, and truth is not complicated…except for when we don’t want to accept or follow it.
Unsurprisingly, I tend to agree with this.
Insofar as the Bible being authoritative as a conversation starter with God; I would simply say that this would clearly depend on what we are saying on our side of the conversation (in our response).
If we are saying we don’t believe that You, God, are able to perform that which our Godless science has thus far discovered cannot physically be done; and therefore we don’t believe the scriptural narratives of such impossibilities to be literally true—and for that matter we are in the process of interpreting what you mean about everything You have said in terms of miracles, and about how we got here, and about how we get out of here, then we should shut up.
Question? Questions?
Darrel,
I get that you are an ID Creationist. I didn't think the question of "origin" was under discussion. Ultimately for all parties one's view on that becomes a statement of faith to some degree, so why confuse things?
As for "mechanism" being critical and history less important. I'm not sure how you can separate these two. As I see it, mechanism is demonstrated in history. One could even turn that around some: history is demonstrated in the mechanism.
What this means to me is that things like the salt are very significant because at the very least history must be compatible with the mechanism one puts forward. To illustrate, put it this way: Evolution is a mechanism. It is a theory of a process by which things came to be what they are. Now, evolutionists would look like real dim witts if there were no fossils, no geologic column, no correlation of dating, etc etc. It would make a mockery of their mechanism theory.
If you are a "young life ID proponent" then it does become significant how the salt under the dead sea fits in because an explanation needs to be compatible with your mechanism as demonstated in history.
If you are an "old life ID propoent" then I imagine you would need to fit it into a somewhat different framework or history.
So, this time I am going to push you on the point and ask again that you educate me on how you would fit the salt under the dead sea into the flood.
Chris, I don't believe fossils, geologic column, and dating tell us nothing of mechanism.
Let me correct my grammer above: I don't believe the history of fossils tell us a thing of mechanism. Geology itself is different, as with the salt under the dead sea I assume. Chris, I will study the salt thng, I am sure you know much more about it than I. And I think you are thinking I will disagree with you about it or something, which is doubtful.
Obviously!
The more 'educated' can insist on the correctness of their view and dismiss those that don't converse in their circles (pun intended).
For most of us the point of education is to improve our ability to comprehend and adapt to our situation: humans eat, humans sleep, humans require shelter, humans require association, etc. But when the education becomes so focused on any single facet that it disregards the any of these human factors it becomes ignorance. Don't ask the learned to make toast! And don't ask me how Newton's Law of Gravity changed the effect of that law. But I can make you some french toast that will have you defy the Law of Gravity, like you are in heaven.
(Only mentioning this to make a particular point: it is the first time I have made any issue of my qualifications in a post here, and will be the last time. If the arguments can't stand on their own merits, credentials don't help.)
I have a PhD in science education, and am currently in the early stages of working toward a second in quantum optics. I can make toast.
Let's not make arguments from hyperbole that end up being nonsense. The notion that education is anti-practical is simply wrong.
Yeah, but can you make French toast?
Of course, I am kidding; and you make a good point about arguments being unable to stand on their own merits.
We need those who make bread and those who make French toast! More than education for information is the ability to discern between facts and fiction; between logic and sloppy thinking; between recognizing fallacies and gullibility. Without this ability to separate the wheat kernels from the hulls, people will believe almost anything–particularly if the read or hear it via the media–spin machines.
Just so you won't miss it, Chris, since it's a reply to a comment you made a couple of days ago, I want you to know that I did not ignore you, even though my response is delayed. You'll just have to go back and search for it a bit.
Thanks Nathan, I must have missed it:)
Some of the thoughts above got me to thinking and in doing so I became a little poetic. (Why should Timo have sole, but highly qualified, domain to that one:) Now you can suffer the consequences of my thoughts if you wish:
Pixel in Pix
Life's a pixel on canvas graced, Its first breath arbitrary placed.
Parents painters colors splashed, Shaped the pixels home and bed.
Painters come painters leave, Shape the canvas we believe.
Yet paint n picture seem to change, Pixels move in greater range.
No longer arbitrary place n color, Mega picture endless border.
Limits now are questions asked, Color splashes truth unmasked.
Some were sad some were grand, Standing now survey our land.
Pixels in picture beyond belief, Set in universe in sharped relief.
Small the canvas ours compared, Just a pixel vast canvas spread.
Its first breath arbitrary placed, Parent painter color splashed.
Shaped the planet scarce a pixel, Set its time in space and spiral.
Tells its story and fool I'd be, To think this pixel is all can be.
More remiss I'd be to permit, Microscopic pixel ink in print,
Greater right to state all truth, Nature in cosmos is my booth.
Each painter leaves their mark, Truth finds meaning in the heart.
First colors splashed all begin, A journey of the picture I am in.
Chris Barrett
You don't have to agree with the theology underlying it, but perhaps some points are good. Cheers
This is beautiful, Chris! Well done indeed!
I’m trying to understand your poetry, brother.
Let me see if I am on the right track with your theme. Those who don’t believe the Bible, including those who don’t consider it to be authoritative, are like the prodigal son—who are away in a far country, but are in fact on their way back home.
Those who believe that much of the Bible is to be accepted as literally true and believe it to be authoritative don’t want the prodigals to be accepted back, and are like the older brother.
Further, those who believe that much of the Bible is to be accepted as literally true and the infallible, totally inspired words of God through His holy servants are totally left-brained (like me) older brothers.
On the other hand, you are like the Father/father, because you recognize that people who don’t believe the Bible and/or those who don’t consider it to be authoritative are groping to find their way home.
Do I “read,” or understand, you now?
As for the textbook analogy, those who regard the Bible as only a textbook are trying to limit the limitless God. One might ask such folk, “What aspect of omnipotence do you not quite understand?”
Three Harvard biologists, Ben Hunter, Jesse D. Hollister, and Kirsten Bomblies, have now sought to face the daunting new challenge of explaining from an evolutionary viewpoint the new findings of Epigenetics, with an essay in Current Biology, "Epigenetic Inheritance: What News for Evolution?" The reason this article has a question mark is because we are learning that there are many biological information codes besides DNA. It is getting harder and harder to be a Naturalist.
Scientists now know that gene expression is controlled by numerous mechanisms, including histone tags (sometimes called the "histone code"), the "zygote code," various types of small RNAs, alternative splicing, pre- and post-transcriptional modification, and an army of transcription factors. The old "central dogma" that information flows from gene to protein has been defunct for some time now. Indeed, the environment influences epigenetic markers. How are they passed on, and how stable are they? How do "epialleles" (a new term extending Mendel's paired gene concept) affect the phenotype? Some Brothers on this blog might know!
Epigenetic marks such as cytosine methylation or histone modifications can alter gene expression in response to environmental and developmental cues without changes in DNA sequence. It is like genes as keys on the piano, and epigenetics like the sheet music telling the musician how to play the notes. People in a resent sermon liked this illustration anyway.
From what I know, so far, only a couple of transgenerational studies on the lab plant Arabidopsis thaliana provide detailed data on long-term inheritance of epigenetic tags. They show that some tags are dynamic and some static, with the static markers tending to reside with non-coding regions of DNA. There appear to be "hotspots" for epigenetic change. Some markers can revert; others appear to be metastable. The Harvard team mentioned above decided to engage a little in a “junk epigennome” theory. “Junk DNA” has become a great embarrassment for past evolutionist, so why they would take this risk, I don’t know.
It has been known for some time that epialleles at some loci are "metastable" and can change dramatically over generations. Such instability suggests it is unlikely that alternative epialleles can contribute appreciably to stable evolutionary change.
While instability speaks against the idea that individual epialleles would contribute to long-term adaptive evolution, it does beg the question why there is variation among loci in epigenetic stability in the first place. Such variation could be part of a plastic environmental response system or, if selection can stabilize epigenetic states, then it becomes a standing supply of potentially heritable, adaptive epialleles. A particularly intriguing possible explanation when considering the role that epigenetic variation may play in long-term development is that it has a propensity to vary, rather than any particular allelic state, that is under selection. Simulations have shown that phenotypic variation and plasticity generated by epigenetic instability can be beneficial in variable environments, and thus instability may itself be a target of selection.
This reinforces the IDCreationist’s concept that Epigenetics is a dynamic environmentally interactive digital code that guides the development of life–positive evidence for the ingenuious wisdom that constructed this dynamic system of Information . “In the Beginning was The Word.”
Are there people studying how to quantify selection on methylation patterns or other epigenetic marks? When we observe divergence in methylation, how can we assess whether this happened under selection or via random "noise" or plasticity in the regulatory system? I would be interested if DoctorF or Chris know of any research in this area?
Having a clearer quantification of the connection between epigenetic variation and phenotypes will allow
Darrel,
I'm not sure what others think re above, but it misses a key point.
Proving ID does NOT disprove an evolutionary process overseen by God.
As I've noted before, I personally have some sympathy for ID. That is even hinted at in my verse above, but it has some problems.
By your constant reference to ID I cannot understand whether you are trying to use it to "prove"
1. a Young Earth Creation,
2. an Old Earth Young Life, OR
3. an Old earth, Old Life, BUT God behind the process?
If you made these things clear it would help (at least my brain) get where you are driving at with the constant ID stuff.
Cheers
Hey Timo, don't worry about being underwater – I'll share my SCUBA (Self Contained Underwater Breathing Aparatus) with you. (That is in reality probably where I spend most my time in relation to the subjects that I stick my nose into:)
Another favourite saying I have is "we don't know what we don't know". There are, I am sure, plenty of readers here much more qualified on the intricacies of science and the like who see holes in things I say. Perhaps they graciously keep quiet!
That confessed, I like the drift of your expansion on my point above. I wish more effort could go into exploring these type of questions/answers than into arguing over the "need" for them or defending the status quo.
Is a process of evolution overseen by God
an ‘evolutionary process?” The majority of scientists
would say, “NO.”
Hi Chris, yes, I am an old earth but not “that” old, and
an old life but not that old IDCreationist. The combination
of geology and paleontology clearly show a span of time
far far older than 6000 years.
Is this demonstrative of a new type of "confession":
" I am an old earth but not "that" old, and an old life but not that old IDCreationist.
Maybe we should begin to see the gradual "evolving" of ideology as science becomes increasingly difficult to refute. Now, when Cliff….
Darrel,
Evolution is a process. A natural process. Would I be right to suggest that scientists who say "NO" would do so on the objection of "interference"/ "intervention" in that "natural" process. I don't see much of either.
You can use ID to posit where God has been involved, but to my knowledge there is NOTHING in any of that which can dismiss the overall process demonstrated in an old earth and old life etc.
Re your second point, ""that" old" is very rubbery and sound like you are trying to cut it both ways. Am I right that what you are admitting is that both age of earth and age of life are both well outside the possible time frames for a traditional Genesis lineup?
Hey Chris, if I understand you correctly, in your
first response, you are agreeing with me that calling
a process the God superintends is not really ‘evolution?’
Long ages are not out of harmony with Genesis
as I read creation story.
Could you share Chris what parts of ID that you
see light in or agree with in some way? Thanks
Darrel,
Perhaps I lost you. I am saying that a proces God superintends IS evolution. The debate would be over to what degree and in what way he did/does/has/or will superintend or intervene etc.
I am also saying that I personally do not see much "interference" or "intervention" by God. But that brings back in the question of what would constitute interference or intervention etc. What does it mean to superintend etc.
I discussed my views on ID with Nathan on my Noah's Flood blog, so don't really think I need to re do them here.
I think my point still stands: There is nothing in ID which removes the very probable existence of an evolutionary process. Evolution if you like. You may like to "demonstrate" the existence of (a) God/god behind such via ID, but at the end of the day much of that comes down to interpretation of data and is a statement of faith. None of this removes evolution as a process (and a very "natural" one) by which it appears life has become what it is.
Just read Elaine's comment about new type of confession.
Yes, I'm still wondering about your second point, ""that" old" is very rubbery and sound like you are trying to cut it both ways. Am I right that what you are admitting is that both age of earth and age of life are both well outside the possible time frames for a traditional Genesis lineup?
I would be most interested in your answer to that one. If the answer is "yes" then I can now understand why you would have less trouble with the salt, but would still wonder how you fit it into the flood story.
I discussed the time thing on Erv’s previous blog
Darrel,
At risk of pushing you where I begin to think you don't want to go – I scrolled through that blog and see nothing (may have missed it) that deals with the point/question above. Yes, you speak about the 6000 yrs etc, but not clearly enough to make anything out of it?
So, puzzled.
Chris, do you know how old the earth is????
Neither do I! Let’s not pretend to be Bishop Ussher here.
I don’t want to push you either where you don’t
want to go regarding Design; it seems when
we are discussing ID you for some reason want
to talk about the flood!
I am going back to ‘evolution being directed by God,’ if I may belabor the point. I think, God, in any sense is antithetical to the classic understanding of what evolution is. For example: In The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan wrote, “I meet many people who are offended by evolution, who passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over eons from slime. {{there is no evidence for this presupposition}} They also tend to be less than assiduous in exposing themselves to the evidence. Evidence has little to do with it. What they wish to be true, they believe is true. Only 9 percent of Americans accept the central finding of modern biology that human beings (and all the other species) have slowly evolved by natural processes from a succession of more ancient beings with no divine intervention needed along the way.”
Jerry Coyne, in his polemic Why Evolution is True, scoffs at those 91 percent who find his analysis unconvincing. He writes, "True, breeders haven't turned a cat into a dog, and laboratory studies haven't turned a bacterium into an amoeba … but it is foolish to think that these are serious objections to natural selection."
Of course these are, in fact, serious objections; major speciation via undirected processes is the crux of the Darwinian narrative. If it can't be replicated, this objection is an example of what logicians call a "defeater.”
Dr. Coyne plows onward. "The average rates of evolution seen in colonization studies are large enough to turn a mouse into the size of an elephant in just ten thousand years!" Does any lucid person buy this line of reasoning? New lines of code, specified information are needed for this kind “change.” This kind of New Information being generated by mutation/selection, lateral gene transfer or any other natural process has never been demonstrated and never will.
Darrel,
Let me make this clear: There is NOWHERE in this discussion I am not very happy to go.
I have discussed some pros and cons of ID elsewhere. Happy to do so again, but just did not think it best to do so here. Put up a blog outlining some issues/points re that and Adventism and I will be right in there with you on the thread.
Do I know how old earth is? NO. But I will not fudge around on "not that old". I look at the geology, the column, the ice cores, the old Barrier Reef under the "new" one, the White Cliffs etc etc. AND (without giving a thought to any dating method) I have no doubt that we would express BOTH the ages of earth and life in the order of hundreds of thousands and hundreds of millions. To me there is no way in ones wildest dreams that it can be fitted into even a sembalnce of traditional Genesis explanations.
Why do I want to talk about the "flood"? Actually it was the salt in the dead sea in light of the flood! Because, among many other things, it potentially has some critical implications for the flood. Show me it does not and I will be a happy camper.
I personally do not care if you want to and CAN PROVE ID. Great. But please do not confuse that with having DISPROVED evolution.
To find evidence of Design within a process may point to a cause or influence within that process, but it does NOT change the raw data which points with resounding force to a process playing out over millions of years.
Note: I am not talking about the issue of the ORIGIN of life from slime.
Note: Even Carl Sagan in your quote above qualifies what the 90% object to as natural processes ….. with no divine intervention needed along the way.” NO INTERVENTION? That is a whole lot different.
Would the 90% feel the same way if you put to them a process of evolution WITH intervention along the way? I believe not. It would still be evolution, but would change the way people saw it. Sagan's quote "proves" nothing. In fact, even that piece mixes ideas and is potentially misleading.
Hey Chris, thank for your comments. You are
right some scientists and some of “evidences” can
be very “misleading.” Please understand that
I am not thinking you are at all!! I am seeking, you
are seeking. I think our discussion illustrates how
the definitions of certain words can be viewed
differently, causing confusion.
"Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the testimony of God’s word because of those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself that it has existed tens of thousands of years. And many who profess to believe the Bible are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old. These, to free themselves from difficulties thrown in their way by infidel geologists, adopt the view that the six days of creation were six vast, indefinite periods, and the day of God’s rest was another indefinite period; making senseless the fourth commandment of God’s holy law. Some eagerly receive this position; for it destroys the force of the fourth commandment, and they feel a freedom from its claims upon them. . . . Without Bible history, geology can prove nothing. Relics found in the earth do give evidence of a state of things differing in many respects from the present. But the time of their existence can be learned only from the inspired record. It may be innocent to conjecture beyond this, if our suppositions do not contradict the facts found in the sacred Scriptures. But when men leave the word of God, and seek to account for His creative works upon natural principles, they are upon a boundless ocean of uncertainty. Just how God accomplished the work of creation in six literal days, he has never revealed to mortals. His creative works are as incomprehensible as his existence."
I'll go with the Bible on this. Scientists think they have figured these things out, but since they start with the wrong suppositions, they inevitably arrive at the wrong conclusions.
Oops, forgot to give the reference for the above quote–Signs of the Times, Mar. 20, 1879.
Tell me if you agree with me on this Horace: I would say that this passage and the eschatology delineated in The Great Controversy are the two foremost reasons why the ministry of Ellen White must be undermined by all anti-Seventh-day Adventists.
I agree with you completely, Stephen. What I find sad is that many of those "anti-SDA's" are members of the SDA Church.