Here We Go Again, Part Two: Is There a Way Forward?
by Ervin Taylor
Here are two quotes:
“Science is based on nothing more than the understanding of man. Man is flawed, and our understanding is limited . . . That's the real issue; man's theories vs. the Word of God.”
“All theological and scientific understandings are based on the understanding of humans. Humans are flawed and our understanding is limited . . . Is not the real issue: flawed human understandings about the natural world vs. flawed human understandings concerning the ‘Word of God’? We already agree that we have flawed understandings about how the real world works. What we disagree on is whether our understandings about Biblical statements also represent flawed human interpretations.”
A reader might notice that while these two paragraphs advance different perspectives, both agree on one thing: “Humans are flawed and our understanding is limited.”
I’m guessing here, but I suspect that my good friend Cliff Goldstein and I would agree on the essential validity of that statement. Might this offer a way forward beyond the obvious disagreements?
If the disagreement was just about theological opinions, ideas and concepts, the answer to that question might be “yes.” All human opinions – about both theology and science – are incomplete and subject to revision.
Traditionalists insist that they have a way around this problem – “special revelation.” The problem with this approach is that they assume that their understanding of what the “special revelation” is communicating is somehow vastly superior to the understandings of other humans whose reasoning is, of course, flawed.
Another element involved in this problem proceeds from the fact that opinions, ideas, and concepts on any topic rarely, if ever, exist in isolation from the real world of human traditions and institutions where there is a bottom line that reads “Who controls?”. Who controls the media, the institutions, and most importantly, who controls the economic resources, i.e., funding, i.e., money? This process is very easy to see in the larger secular world. Some people seem to find it difficult to see it working within institutionalized religious bodies.
May I suggest that at the heart of a large part of the disagreement about how and when God created the world within the Adventist tradition are not mere differences of opinion about theological issues as such? At the core of much of the disagreement is the issue of ecclesiastical “power” and “control.” Or more specifically, who, at the end of the day, has the power and who does not to impose its point of view within an institutional setting. It’s really not about “Truth.” It is mostly about “Authority” and “Power.”
My good friend Cliff once wrote one of his justly famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) opinion pieces published in the Adventist Review that essentially argued that it makes little difference if a point of view espoused by a religious organization is “reasonable” or “rational.” If that position has been established as a core belief, then members of that religious organization have an obligation to believe that it is true by virtue of the fact that they are members of that religious body. Many, including the present writer, found his reasoning highly flawed. But the point he made resonates with many, if not most, Adventist traditionalists, including the extremist right wing as represented by the principals at the Educate Truth (sic) web site and, to some degree, the ethos projected at the Adventist Theological Society.
Once a set of theological propositions, such as those espoused by the institutionalized orthodox Adventist tradition, become assembled into a comprehensive theological system, all of the parts assumed great importance and had to be defended, no matter how shallow or non-existent might be their Biblical or logical foundation. In the Adventist tradition, because the views published under the name of Ellen G. White have been incorporated into the orthodox theological system and have been deemed normative, one has to deal with that source as well.
As a result, the institutional church has been forced to expend a great deal of energy and resources to defend every element of the entire theological package, no matter how weak might be the arguments for one or more propositions included in the package. The only unique teaching of institutional Adventism tradition—the Investigative Judgment—immediately comes to mind along with the idea that the Adventist denomination is the “Remnant Church” of the Book of Revelation.
Now, it is correct that, early in its history, Adventism was able to jettison several important elements of its incipient theological system — namely its Shut Door and anti-Trinitarian views. But this was at a time when both its theology and political structure was still in a state of flux. Once an institutional system crystalized at the beginning of the 20th century, major modifications became very difficult to accomplish. When the writings of EGW were turned into an oracle, Adventist theology ossified. We had “The Truth.” How could Truth be changed?
Might I suggest that one positive way forward in the debate concerning origins within the Adventist tradition is if both sides seriously accept the proposition that we all are fallible human beings with limited understandings and that we are all in the same boat trying to navigate in a sea of complex issues. If some think they have a “special” understanding, then we can then anticipate that the Adventist cultural and theological wars will continue with all kinds of unanticipated consequences forthcoming.
Erv,
I find it interesting that some of the staunch defenders of traditional SDA theology on this blog assert that our understanding of the natural world through science is "mans understanding." But, theology also being a "human endeavor" then is fraught with the same problems. In the end where did SDA theology come up with the notion that the SDA church in particular is the "remant" in Revelation? Heady stuff and if one believes this notion then certainly that would make SDA's feel special. It is interesting that Adventism has jettisoned some of the earlier theological positions such as "the shut door" theology. Hmm, seems to me that the pursuit of truth is also a human endeavor and subject to change. Thus, truth itself is always in a position of being modified.
Erv, John, et al.,
I certainly agree that human understanding is never complete, and that we are, whether in science or theology, in emergent states of knowledge and understanding. This means, I think, that anything we think we know is virtually always subject to revision on the basis of more complete information and/or explanations that more accurately reflect the best available objective evidence. I do not see us as ever reaching ultimate "Truth" or complete understanding. So, it is no surprise that I see a need for some flexibility and for being open to changing our minds when evidence warrants.
If a church is unwilling to recognize the validity of objective measures that indicate that humans have been around for more than 6000 years it seems to me that they are placing their most vulnerable members in danger of developing mental health problems. There is a kind of schizophrenia-like breaking away from reality when tangible and objective reality is denied and/or explained away by reference to a supernatural dimension of doubtful provenance.
Joe I agree. My main concern with Goldstein is not that he doesn't believe the world is more than 6,000 years old, but that he makes absolutist statements that one cannot even call themselves a Seventh-day Adventist unless they share his opinion. The difference might seem slight to some but is very important to others.
In particular, what about young people going to university (especially non-Adventist colleges) where they learn about evolution. If say an Adventist young person studies geology and goes on to believe the world is older than 6,000 years (which is actually highly likely, given the record of the Church's own sponsored members who studied such subjects for the Geoscience Research Institute) then according to Cliff that young person has to leave the SDA Church!
The net indirect of Goldstein's views include: i) young people are too scared to study subjects such as geology, biology or zoology, for fear of being 'turned', which is contrary to our long tradition of educational excellence; ii) if young people study and do reject the young age of the earth, they leave the Church; iii) if young people study and do reject the young age of the earth, the need to basically keep it hidden; and/or iv) the SDA Church tries to subvert the whole subject by putting pressure on its college professors and teachers not to teach a young person the arguments in favour of evolution, or do it half heartedly, lest young people come to these exact conclusions.
I disagree (as you would expect) that it is about power and control. But it does have a lot to do with whether or not one accepts Ellen White as the Lord's inspired messenger. If she was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then one cannot lightly dismiss her statements about the age of the earth or the lack of evolution. Not to beat a dead horse (from the Eocene era), but the most straightforward reading of the Bible does not allow for evolutions or long ages, either. And, unless there is a compelling reason to understand it otherwise, it is usually the case that the simplest and most straightforward reading of Scripture is the correct one.
Since Mr. Taylor does not believe that Ellen White was a prophet, but does believe in evolution, then we will perpetually disagree. To answer his question, "Is there a way forward," I would say no. There can never be a way forward that includes evolution as a viable option for a Christian. Christianity is incompatible with evolution. Well informed evolutionists understand this. It is only professed Christians who want to have their cake and eat it too, who find this to be a stumbling block.
Horace, I believe in Ellen White 100% and I do believe in her statements, however, I do realise that whilst her revelations were from God she herself translated those visions through the prism of her sinful and limited human flesh – only the 10 Commandments was dictated by God word-for-word. In fact, Ellen White is no different from the prophets of the Bible in this regard. Part of the problem with judging Ellen White (by both outside and inside critics) is that they apply standards to her that they would never in fact do so for Bible prophets.
Re the most straightforward reading of the Bible, the most straightforward reading also suggests the world is flat, that the universe revolves around the sun, or that Yahweh is not the only God in existence but the tribal god of the Israelites. The Bible, including the Gospels, include numerous minor inaccuracies – a classic one being whether the Centurion really did visit Jesus personally (compare Matt 8 with Luk 7). The Bible also has things that reflect bygone periods, such as slaves obeying masters, which obviously do not literally apply today but which one might find an underlying universal principle.
I would like to know how Horace deals with these sorts of issues?
It is no problem for me because I realize that the Bible represents a progressive revelation about God to and through mankind. To that end, the Bible often contains many statements about present truth. I wouldn’t expect God to inform Moses, Paul or Ellen White for that matter about the intricacies of how DNA works, or what keeps birds and airplanes in the air. For that same reason, I have no real concerns about common criticisms about Ellen White, about her supposed plagiarism, failed prophecies or inconsistencies.
People need to stop reading the Bible as a scientific textbook and start reading it perhaps as an inspired piece of art, or more accurately, an inspired art gallery about God. If Picasso, Van Gough, Di Vinci and Michelangelo all painted the same person (as the 4 Gospels do about Jesus), they wouldn’t be exactly the same in a photographic sense, but they would all nevertheless be ‘true’ – arguably more true than a photograph.
Well-informed Christians recognize that Usher's chronology and worship of The Bible as the literal and inerrant Word of God is incompatible with abundant tangible physical evidence. They appreciate that Jesus, not The Bible, is indicated in scripture to be "The Word" and that there are many ways of reading and interpreting scripture–and that honest people disagree on the most valid interpretations of scripture and life's meaning. Perhaps I should have said, "Some well-informed Christians…."
I believe Dr. Taylor is an SDA Christian who understands that believing something (or not) does not make it so (or not so). He also recognizes that abundant objective evidence exists that can be dated using valid and replicable measures definitively shows that humans have existed in North America (Clovis and probably even earlier) for more than twice as long as Usher claimed for all of human history as he read it in scripture. There is no need for Christians to worship Usher or his way of reading scripture, or Mrs. White's narrative at a time when she did not have access to the abundant evidence that now exists. So, not only CAN Christians believe that the earth and human life on it is more than 6000 years old, many DO believe that. And such an understanding removes an enormous barrier to belief by sensible and well-informed people.
Of course, that is not the only problem, but the assertion that Christianity is incompatible with evolution is simply unfounded.
When "Truth" is set in concrete, encased in an institutional structure, it becomes immovable, and unchangeable.
If, however, truth is a goal, then it is like a mind in formation, always seeking and learning, never content with the past but always evaluating, not rejecting new information but open to the world around us.
Just this morning while driving and listening to a lecture on Pasteur, I was most impressed with the "scientific" mind; never content to accept the tradition but asking "why" and if there might be absolute evidence rather than simple acceptance of the past. When illness presents a life-and-death
situation, no one is willing to accept previous treatment modalities but seeks
the latest and best authorities for a cure. No longer are 19th century physicians relied upon. Those who are recognized are not those who cling to tradition but have accepted, perhaps what they did not personally discover, but experts in the particular area.
Yet in such diverse sciences as biology, geology, paleoanthropology, the experts are dismissed by those who rely on only one source for their information and have now concluded that they are equally competent as those who have spent lifetimes in study and exploration.
Why, when few would contest their physician's recommendation and diagnosis? Could it be because this has an impact on his life? While other decisions are only theoretical and have no personal effect?
Yes. One of my favourite quotes ever:
"Trust those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it." – Andre Gide
Mr. Butler has made a comment with which I very much agree. Why does the Adventist Church have such a problem with evolution and the geological column? The clear answer is Ellen White. It is not the Bible. If Adventism could view EGW in the same light that our Lutheran friends view Martin Luther, Adventism would have been able to solve this problem in the same manner that we solved what were once thought to be vexing theological problems such as “The Daily” and “King of the North.”
Whether EGW is or is not a prophet is not the problem. The problem is what we believe about what a prophet believes. Are prophets inerrant? No. Do they make mistakes and hold erroneous opinions? Yes. The problem is that there developed a tradition inside Adventism that EGW’s opinions on any topic were inerrant. Because she had visionary experiences where she reported that she had to traveled back to the beginning “about 6000 years ago,” traditional Adventism seems to be stuck with that.
On some topics that might have caused real problems for important parts of the Adventist ethos, we have been able to make “adjustments.” EGW’s views about “drugs” are an interesting example. If we had been stuck with EGW’s sensitivities on that topic, our medical school would never have been able to flourish. Therefore, we reevaluated what she meant by “drugs” and “discovered” that she would not have been concerned about modern drugs. Problem solved! Our hospitals can maintain fully stocked pharmacies and medical students can learn how to proscribe a full range of medications.
Traditional Adventism seems to think that we have nothing to lose in continuing to hold as a religious institution to a fundamentalist understanding of earth history. I guess intellectual maturity is not very high on their agenda.
Adventists are a very small minority of (YEC or YLC) creationists. Gallup puts the number of American creationists at around 40% of the population, which is 120 million people. Obviously, Seventh-day Adventists constitute less than one percent (1%) of the creationists in America. Just as obviously, most of those 120 million people don't even know who Ellen White was, much less recognize her prophetic authority. Obviously, creationism is a very popular option among Christians of many different denominations, because it is a very clear, straightforward reading of the Bible.
Even without Ellen White, Adventists would still be creationists, because our signature doctrine is the Sabbath, and its continuing relevance to the Christian Church; and the only universal biblical rationale for observance of the Sabbath is that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day. (Gen. 2:2-3; Ex. 20:11)
Not only do you find creationism in the fundamentalist churches with a high view of Scripture, but the doctrine is not entirely lost even in liberal "mainline Protestanism." "Did God Create in 6 days" is a book edited by Presbyterians Pipa and Hall, and they show that belief in a literal creation week is alive and well even in the Presbyterian Church. I find it remarkable that creationism is making a comeback in mainline Protestantism even while some in the Seventh-day Adventist Church want to jettison it.
Might be worth reading Ron Numbers' 'The Creationists' for a view of how Ellen White influenced George Macready Price and how he influenced the nascent creationist movement. While those millions of creationists may not *know* it, nonetheless many of them will have been indirectly influenced by her teachings on this point.
David, there's no doubt that George McCready Price was very influential in creationism, including influencing Whitcomb & Morris's The Genesis Flood, but I think Numbers' larger thesis is wrong. Most Christians, even in the mainline protestant denominations, were biblical literalists and young earth creationists prior to about 150 years ago. I rather imagine that Numbers relies too much on scholarly opinion and writings, which have always been disproportionately unorthodox.
And regardless whether the 120 million non-Adventist creationists know of the indirect influence of Ellen White on contemporary apologists like Ken Ham, the point is that they're not creationists because of Ellen White, but solely because of their own straightforward reading of the Bible.
Outside America, creationism is a minority position even among believing Christians. A literal reading of Genesis is not a part of the wider Christian tradition. As early as Augustine there were voices warning about a literal reading of Genesis. The truth of creation was never questioned, just a literal reading of Genesis. The insistence on a conflation of truth and literalness seems to be one of America's contributions to the Christian world. I am not sure it is one of its better contributions.
Mr Read is conflating his data. Of the many creationists in the United States a huge number of those are not young earth believers. There are thousands of Bible believing Christians who believe the process transpired over long ages, but under the direction of God. A good website Hugh Ross' http://www.answersincreation.org// lists many of those.
I agree insofar as that is how many Adventists see it – it isn't just about Ellen White but also about the Sabbath. However, it may surprise many that many theistic evolutionary scholars talk far more, not less, about the importance of the seventh-day Sabbath. In fact, many argue that precisely because there was no literal 6 days x 24 period of creation, the whole priestly account in Gen is especially to provide a theological teaching about the seventh-day Sabbath.
I have said this before, as the 10 commandments are all negative in tone, and the two great commandments are their positive equivalents, the positive aspects of the Moral Law are also found in the Gen account. The positive aspects of the Moral Law as found in Eden involve man imitating God. The point being, an 'image' is not the same thing real thing.
For example, the commandment re God's sovereignty correlates to God's injunction that man will rule over the earth. The commandment not to make idols correlates to mankind being the image of God. The correlation to not taking the Lord's name in vain (because naming means having dominion over something) correlates to God's naming of the day and night and man's naming of the animals. The commandments about loving they neighbour as oneself is correlated in Adam and Eve literally coming from oneself (i.e. which is why God probably didn't make them from two separate piles of dust but a rib).
Everyone would realise that mankind's imitation of God is just that – an imitation – it is not an equivalent. Thus, Adam's naming of the animals is not the same as God's naming of the day and night. Adam's sovereignty over the earth is not the same as God's sovereignty over the universe. Adam's image of God doesn't mean Adam is God!
Finally, when we get to the Sabbath, we realise mankind rests on the seventh-day as an image or imitation of God. God’s creation ‘day’ is much longer than a human day, in the same way as God’s Sabbath has been going since the end of His creation activity. This is why the Sabbath commandment has no ‘it was evening and morning’ at the end of it. The whole point being, the seventh-day Sabbath is an act of worship, where mankind imitates God’s creation in a 7-24 hour ritual.
Those who say God worked for 6×24 hours and rested for only 1×24 hours are arguably equating mankind’s creation activities with God – i.e. a type of blasphemy which was the cause both Lucifer’s and Adam’s fall. Equally, those who deny the importance of the seventh-day Sabbath do not worship God through imitation – where our whole purpose of human life on planet earth is to be images of God.
In conclusion, far from do away with the Sabbath, a belief in theistic evolution may in fact reaffirm the importance of the seventh day as an act of human imitation to God.
Perhaps you meant prescribe, rather than "proscribe" Mr Taylor?
Some simple questions – what is a ‘prophet’? What is ‘inspiration’? Do prophets use their own imagination, cultural references and feelings, or are they merely Holy dictation machines? Are prophets more like scientists or painters? What would be more ‘true’ – a photograph of the Mona Lisa or Leonardo Di Vinci’s painting? Do we as a society (even atheists) talk about master works of art, fiction, songs or poetry being ‘inspired’ precisely because they don’t merely replicate reality, as say a photo does, but deliberately emphasize and exaggerate to draw our attention to a particular point or higher reality.
Now how should prophets of the Bible be viewed – as master artists or as Holy dictation machines? Finally, how have people (including conservative Adventists and critics of Adventists) viewed Ellen White – as a mater artists or as a Holy dictation machine? Do most of us apply standards to Ellen White we would never apply to a biblical prophet?
Taylor has outlined a very important point. It is not whether White was a prophet or not, but what are the hermenuetics to understand her. In addition White did change her views many times through the years. In Valentine's book Prophet and the Presidents he records one instance where White reversed her counsel approximately two weeks after Daniels made a concerted effort to seek her specific advice.
This does not negate the prophetic role, ie Jonah, but creates a dynamic that is much more fluid.
I believe many of our members are both unable and unwilling to allow any 'fluidity' in our understanding of the prophetic role – or of any belief the church holds. We attract people by offering certainty. I doubt facts are going to change that situation.
When people are attracted to Adventism by by the certitude of having the truth, and that to become a member is to begin the walk straight to the pearly gates, they have been set up as Fundamental believers and no one should be surprised to discover resistance to any change in what they were taught.
Isn't the irony though that many of us (including ex and non-Adventist critics, together with very conservative Adventists) all view Ellen White in the same rigid, which one would never apply to biblical prophets? Thus, to the ex-Adventist and non-Adventist, Ellen White is a plagiarizing fraud; to the conservative Adventist, every jot of her sayings must be observed, no matter how absurd. With both ‘sides’ so skewed in their criteria for what makes someone a true prophet, is there any wonder we have all these problems?
If I understand my good friend Erv the issue before us is not evolution versus creation but this statement he quoted from Goldstein, "We already agree that we have flawed understandings about how the real world works. What we disagree on is whether our understandings about Biblical statements also represent flawed human interpretations.”
We have discussed the science issue so much I don't see any new light coming forth. But the quote above gets at the cruz of the issue. How do we interpret Special Revelation and General Revelation? Because we do interpret both. The many different denominations are proof that we have different ways of understanding the bible.
Understanding both the Bible and nature is a little like understanding quantum mechanics. The laws we are familiar with at the atomic level do not work at the sub atomic level. And the laws we are finding at the atomic level do not seem to make sense. For example, Heinzenberg's uncertainty principle. So we need a whole new approach to understanding both sides of the debate. I certainly do not have all the answers but I would like to suggest a dose of humility in our discussions. As I have grown and matured I have changed many of my viewpoints and understanding.
Ellen White (whom some of us view with disdain) wrote this in one of my favorite books. "We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ." (Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 37).
Here is a suggestion. Truth is very important. But as Christians we look at what is true from a Christian world view. Paul when writing to the church at Ephesus told them that when they became Christians their life and life style changed and then he said, 20 That, however, is not the way of life you learned 21 when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. (Ephesians 4).
How do we find the truth in Jesus?
Thank you, David Newman, for your note that helps put some perspective on flexibility and openness to change–including your own experience as you "have grown and matured" and "have changed many…viewpoints and understanding." The quotation from Mrs. White indicates that she also appreciated the importance of flexibility and changing opinions. I think the willingness to entertain the possibility that the view one presently holds MIGHT be incomplete or even (God forbid!) inaccurate or Wr-wr-wro-wro–well, you know, would be a step forward for most of us. Could that actually be a way forward?
Joe, thank you for your comment. I always appreciate your comments at AT. They are measured and responsible and without rancor.
Part of the solution revolves around whether propositional truth is more important than relationships. At the same time to have a relationship with someone we need to know something about that person and have some confidence in that person (propositional truth). Our blogs seems to concentrate much more on who is right than who we know (Jesus Christ), that is why Paul said only truth as it is known in Jesus has value. And here is where faith comes in because ultimately saying one has a relationship with God is a faith statement since we cannot "prove" there is a God. However, Jesus said that the way we discover who truly has a relationship with God is how we treat one another "By this will everyone know who are my disciples by how you love one another" John 13:35
The EGW quotation has been used ad infinitum, but what has changed? Our perceptions change only when we are willing to dismiss all our previous beliefs in which we are so heavily invested and become willing to investigate other explanations with an open mind. It is the fear of admitting other possibilities which is too frightening and all the emotional security might begin to crumble. Most people want security and certainty; uncertainty is to be avoided at all costs.
It is one's faith that is jeopardized if an alternate view of origins is even entertained. The objective evidence presented by science cannot be measured by subjective assessment of the Bible account of creation. One must simply realize on what basis judgments are made. On what possible other reasons would one reject the overwhelming objective scientific discoveries indicating a much older earth and life for the Bible story based on no eyewitnesses and only oral accounts interpreted through hundreds, even thousands of individuals?
This is not to condemn those who hold divergent views, but to remind us that we all choose what we believe and there are many reasons for doing so, and most have nothing to do with objectivity.
I find that I must accept or believe more or less tentatively on the basis of objective evidence and my own impressions of past evidence. I suppose there was a time when I believed unconditionally one way or another, but I did not ultimately find that worked for me. Too often, I encountered convincing objective information that did not align with my pre-existing opinions or perspectives. I have come to the point of incorporating revisions regarding what I think or believe quite frequently. It is not just waving in the wind with no anchor, but it is trying to live an evidence-based life, and being open to new information, regardless of the source (but evaluating evidence carefully).
My understandings (interpretations) and viewpoints on things have grown and changed through the years as well, as others here have mentioned. This growth, which has not always been pleasant or welcome has helped me personally to be a better Christian. I am talking about tolerance, respect, patience and insight, all of which I had limited measures of 30 years ago.
What I mean by ‘insight’ is not that I have ‘become smarter,’ although I hope that is true too, but God has helped me to ‘think smarter,’ to be patient for those absolute conclusions, and to read, read, read. Praying for wisdom is critical in scholarship and truth seeking.
Through personal study and prayer, and NOT trusting “the scholars” conclusions (scientific or Biblical), but doing the hard work and forming my own views, I have come to agree that physical and historic evidence is not in harmony with life only 6000 years old, and neither billions of years old.
And a more meaningful discovery was that the Bible does not require views that are not in harmony
other facts, if they be facts!
I have discovered often that Scripture was not “wrong,” “I” was wrong. My life hermeneutic has become -“All Truth is God’s
truth.” History, archeology, cosmology, biology, psychology and Scripture all belong to God.
The Bible has been "used" to select pertinent texts, often out of context, for selection and proof of doctrines. The Bible was never intended for such use but was written by men who had stories to tell of how God had acted as they perceived him.
Like other texts that are sacred to their religion, each are cherished by the religious followers. Stories often have morals to point out principles, just as children's stories may not be factually true but have morals that are timeless.
The parables Jesus told were a favorite method of presenting principles that are applicable for all times.
To insist on the Bible as an accurate and literal accounts is to compare it with ordinary books. It is not a textbook for the latest scientific discoveries and was never intended for that purpose. Certainly the Hebrews who wrote the OT and the writers of the NT had nothing like that in mind when those pages were written.
When we try to explain away Gods Word when it does not "fit" science as we know is this not doubting the power of God? When God created Adam, He created a mature man… then took Adams rib and made Eve a mature women. Why wouldn't God be powerful enough to speak into exsistance a mature world?
“By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.” “For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.” [Psalm 33:6, 9.] The Bible recognizes no long ages in which the earth was evolved from chaos. Of each successive day of creation, the sacred record declares that it consisted of the evening and the morning, like all other days that have followed. At the close of each day is given the result of the Creator’s work. The statement is made at the close of the first week’s record, “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created.” [Genesis 2:4.] But this does not convey the idea that the days of creation were other than literal days. Each day was called a generation, because that in it God generated, or produced, some new portion of his work Christian Education Page 191
Anyone can easily invent a God who can do anything. Claims that the Genesis story is literally factual and that God MUST have done things exactly the way described in the Genesis story seems to be essentially a claim that God could not have created all things in any other way–that is, what I call "putting God in a box." I realize that suggestions that scripture and Mrs. White's opinions do not represent absolute and inerrant ultimate truth make people uncomfortable who view them as such, but why are they not made uncomfortable by the facts of geology and paleontology and genomics that are contrary to those stories/opinions/proclamations?
Sorry, but who says the world isn't older than 6,000 years but the Genesis story is still literally factual and that God did still do things exactly the way described in Genesis? Case in point, doesn't the word day ('yom') mean an interval of time, which can be longer than a 24-hour period? My point being, sometimes even the 'literal' interpretation of something is not so obvious, and a YEC can't claim to have exclusive ownership over the 'literal' interpretation of the creation account. Maybe the problem isn't just the Bible but how we read it?
That all said, I am not necessarily advocating a 'literal' reading of Genesis. Just making the point that it does concern me when certain groups think the have ownership of certain terms, such as 'literal', 'creation', or 'creationist'.
All4HIm,
I don't know if you've figured it out, yet, but no matter how clear Scripture is on any given subject, the skeptics and doubters will always find a way to explain it away, especially if it doesn't fit in with their own world view, or doesn't agree with current scientific thinking. What may be plain to you and me, is obscure to those who have more faith in scienctists than they do in God.
I do appreciate what every one is writing but we still are on the task, how to interpret Scripture and Nature rather than talk about the relationship. We are not saved by knowledge. We are saved by a relationship with the Creator of the Universe. God knew this so he made salvation very simple: One requirement–Faith. If he had added another one we would never have agreed on what the second one would be.
Don't misunderstand me. I believe that propositional truth is important. I once saw a formula that I liked very much R-R=R. That is, Rules minus relationship equals rebellion. Rules have their place. Facts have their place. Truth has its place. But (speaking as a Christian) only truth as it is in Jesus has any value.
Do we still love each other and accept each other even when we disagree?
For Christians to accept that God created the world is insufficient for the nit-pickers who insist that only those who affirm that God's creative acts to six days, no less, no more, are truly Christians.
How important is it to God whether one accepts a young earth or an old earth? Where has he ever made that a distinguishing mark between the saved and the unsaved? When the picayune becomes magnified the essentials become trivialized.
Horace It takes more faith to believe in evolution…..
But God will have a people to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the decisions of ecclesiastical councils, the voice of the majority—not one of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any doctrine. We should demand a plain “Thus saith the Lord.” Satan leads the people to look to pastors, to professors of theology as their guides, instead of searching the Scriptures for themselves. By controlling these leaders, he can influence the multitudes. From Here to Forever Page 365
I’m gratified that my good friend, David and I agree that the so-called “evolution versus creation problem” issue is, at its core, a theological and not a scientific problem. In that connection, I suggest that the contrast between “evolution” and “creation” represents an unnecessary dichotomy which would largely disappear if we can gain agreement on certain theological understandings.
Obviously, David, being a theologian, has the advantage of me in this exchange of views, but I hope that I will be able to present and represent several theological points without distorting too badly the ideas behind them.
I hope that David agrees that understanding the issues raised by a conversation partner is an important part of any exchange of views. Thus, let me see if I can first summarize the points make by him:
He notes the theological concepts of “Special Revelation” and “General Revelation,” correctly (in my view) suggesting that how we treat and understand these concepts proceeds from and is directly related to a set of interpretations that condition how we interpret the Bible.
I’m not sure I understand how the concepts behind quantum mechanics and the Heinzenberg uncertainly principle fits into this discussion, but I certainly agree about the need for large doses of humility and a willingness to change our understandings in light of additional information and/or dialogue. Who can argue with this?
The quotation from EGW cited by David begins by making what I view as a positive and helpful point: “God and heaven alone are infallible.” I agree with David that this is a very important principle and I’m sure that many of us will be able to affirm its truthfulness. On the other hand, the last part of this quotation talking about “unity” and how it is acquired needs some unpacking before I am sure I understand what exactly is at issue here. I must say that I share Elaine’s concerns here.
The next to last paragraph starts out well: “Truth if very important.” So far so good. Also, I would have no problem with his suggestion that “as Christians we look at what is true from a Christian world view” which I assume is related to “the truth that is in Jesus.”
David then concludes this set of statements with a question “How do we find the truth in Jesus?”
Continuing in response to a comment of Joe Erwin, David notes “propositional truth” and contracts it with what I assume could be termed “relational truth.”
With this background, let me see if I understand David’s main points. He is suggesting that revolving the “evolution versus creation problem” is a function of accepting the Christian world view which is the same as accepting the “truth that is in Jesus.”
Before proceeding with this very interesting exchange, could David please indicate his agreement or disagreement with how I have characterized his views to this point and my conclusions from his points.
Part of the problem, I think, is what people do with what they consider to be Truth. Much of the time, I am talking about "truth," not "Truth." That is correct. I regard tangible physical evidence as truth with a little "t." As tanglible and objective as it may be, I do not grasp it so tightly that I cannot let go of it if need be.
Surely there is general agreement here that the God of Creation provided a brain for some reason(s), and that one of those reasons was to enable choices between right and wrong–essentially, between truth and error. It is difficult to imagine the creation of a brain with freedom of choice if everything was programed to work automatically, without regard to choice or evaluation of information.
But I should not go far down the road of assuming that I can read the mind of God. There has already been way too much of that here, in my humble opinion, and, I suppose, others here are far more qualified to read God's mind than I am–though I am still not exactly sure what enables some people to confidently read God's mind and intentions, while others of us, try as we may, are unable to confidently do that.
Erv, has understood my points very well. But let me clarify a little more. I define "propositional truth" as that truth derived from logic and emperical evidence. For example. Snow is white is a propositional truth. I define "relational truth" as the way in which we accept or reject each other as persons. It is more subjective while propositional truth is more objective.
Now those who have followed my exchanges on various threads know that I believe in a short creation and not one of millions of year. I believe this because of my presupposition that I understand nature through the bible. Others work from the presupposition that they make the bible fit into their understanding of science. My main concern is the issue of why Jesus Christ came to die for us and how sin and death relate to what he saves us from. I have not yet read anyone with an evolutionary veiw point explain how to fit the bible concept of a time without sin and without death into the evolutionary framework.
Leaving that aside let's get back to the core of the issue, I believe. The basic issue in the end is not whether we can agree about evolution and creation. The core issue is whether we agree that there is a God and we need a Savior. Jesus longest sermon is contained in Matthew 5, 6, 7. It is not about propositional truth but about relational truth. He said "You say you must not kill" (propositional truth) I say do not get angry (relational truth). You say "Do not commite adultery" (propositional truth). I say "Do not lust" (relational truth." Paul said "If I speak in the tongues of men and angels" (propositional truth" but have not love (relational truth) and he continues in that vein in 1 Cor. 13.
What I am trying to say is that we cannot live without facts, propositional truth, but undergirding all the issues is relational truth, how we treat each other. It is good to have discusisions to understand better the creation/evolution divide but when we have reached a place where consensus seems impossible can we still agree to respect and love each other? I see a lot of posts that seem to indicate that if cannot agree on propositonal truth then the other person is somehow a heretic or not a "good" person.
That is why I reference what Paul said to the church in Ephesus "the truth as it is in Jesus." Everything we discuss must be seen in the light that streams from the cross of Christ. In the end that is the only thing that truly matters.
So, yes, here we go again. I do not know how much plainer I can say this. Science does not falsify or even seek to falsify God.
Some scientists and other people do not believe in God, and some of those people feel that science offers them no evidence to believe. While true, science also does not disprove the existence of God, so atheists have decided to believe that there is no God without having PROOF to base that belief on. Some people are not believers, but recognize that science really has nothing to say about the existence of a spiritual dimension. That means, I think, one is free to believe (have faith) or not. It is a choice.
The choice to believe in God should not, in my opinion, carry with it a commitment to disregard and disrespect tangible physical reality. Subjecting faith to such a contest is unproductive and unhealthy, and is completely uncalled for and unnecessary. If you choose to believe, by all means do so, but let God be as big as He can be in other peoples' minds as well as your own. It is not up to you to tell me what God demands that I believe. When you do that, you diminish God, you diminish your own credibility, and you condemn many people to be either be perpetually confused, to choose fantasy over reality, or to reject the God you claim to represent.
The way we treat each other is the best demonstration of what lies within our hearts, not within our minds. But the statement: "the truth as it is in Jesus"
depends on what we think of Jesus and that varies as much as the number of denominations. If it were only that simple! If all Christians accepted the same idea of Jesus there would only be one church, but that has never happened, even from the earliest beginning.
The early church had other disagreements, and each succeeding generation has had no difficulty discovering other areas where agreement seemed impossible. Today, it is on the scientifc objectiveness vs. the faith subjectiveness. If those minor (?) disagreements can be solved, only then will there be complete unity and our relationship with others will no longer pose a problem–that is–until….
Joe, I do not know who you are addressing this last post to. I agree with all you say in this post. I accewpt "tangible physical reality." So I don't really understand the point of your post. That is the challenge of communicating by writing. If we talked we could clear confusion up so much more quickly.
Elaine, it really is that simple. It is us who have complicated things. That is why we have so many denominations. Here is the simplicity of the gospel. God loves us. He died to show His love. He asks us to accept that love. We do. We are saved. We now live the way He lives toward us, only ours is a lifetime of growing into that love. Some of us are mature. Some of us are not so mature. But maturity does not save us. Only Jesus Christ. The one day old baby is just as human as the eighty year old human. but they are vastly different in their maturity. The older I get (and I will tlurn 69 in June) the more I simplify things. I repeat, it is us who have complicated God's relationship with us.
Religion complicates things; Christ came to simplify. There is so much disgust of religion because of how humans have really "mucked" it up; best expressed by the lead article in the latest Newsweek: "Forget Religion; Follow Jesus."
As soon as a "club" if formed, men begin invoking more and more qualifications to become members of their club. Exclusivity is the name of this game, and the most adept become leaders in the race to include more obstructive regulations, until finally, who can possibly be allowed into such a club?
Those outside the club have no compulsion to join such an organization and, unlike during Medieval times where church membership was the only route to heaven and avoidance of hell, people see no need or benefits to belonging to such a club. Independent thinkers of all ages, but especially the younger, are reluctant to be confined this way.
I understand what you are saying David. To receive the Truth as it is in Jesus is not to mentally grasp
doctrinal issues or consent to them, but receiving Jesus Himself, his charactor and the essence of heart.
He is the Word of God! People have and are receiving the Truth of Jesus, who have never heard His name and know nothing theologically about Him. Jesus Himself said this. Notice Jesus says 'These Others' already belong to Him. And there will be a day inwhich we all will be one. I don't think Jesus is refering to a denomination, but the Kingdom Itself.
"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." John 10:16
Darrel I am often surpised when people use Christ's words as "the word of God." How can that be when Jesus "words" are hardly quotes? There was not scribe actually writing down everything he said. The gospels were written long after the supposed events. Thus what you call "Gods words" are really words that come to us through other human filters. It seems to me that the claim that quotes from Jesus himself being the "word of God" leaves a lot of open territory for discussion.
Darrel, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head. Blessings.
This ultimately leads to the question: Why be Adventist? Are there no other denominations presenting the truth in Jesus? Is there one that is superior to all others? If one finds Jesus represented in one, should he continue to search?
Why do SDA evangelists always preach to the choir? It other churches also see and reveal Jesus' character, should SDA go to other Christians seeking SDA converts? If so, why?
Elaine, you ask good questions but I try and stay with the theme of the thread. Why not start a thread yourself with these questions and see what you come up with.
Good Questions Elaine, I can only speak for myself of course. I believe the Adventist Church is one group among many that preach the Gospel of the Truth in Jesus. I agree that many times we do not!
I see our church more and more moving in the direction of this Truth in Jesus. One step foreward and two backwards at times–but foreward. I believe that God called Abraham to separate from the forms of religion he was in for the purpose of beginning a revelation of Himself through a people upon earth.
The long process of revelation starting with Abraham is fully realized in God's Son, which I think is what David has been saying. I see the sacrifice of Isaac and symbol of Sabbath both prefiguring in God’s purpose—the resting in the work of God for us. Both speak acceptance and peace. Besides symbolic prefigures, we believe that prophecy points more directly to the meaning of history and God’s providence towards us. The Adventist church up-holds these truths which I find very important. I know of course that we have made mistakes in interpretation, but our hermeneutic is sound I believe. Besides these, I have met wonderful people in this church and have had, in general, positive supporting relationship as a member.
The disparate views of how science impacts faith seems to be the subject of Dr. Taylor's essay. What should be the individual response to the dilemma in accepting the scientific discoveries and the Bible story? This is a rather new problem as most of Jewish and Christian beliefs had no reason to question the creation story.
How can an individual as well as the church maintain integrity without discrediting either the biblical story or scientific discoveries? Has the church issued an official recommendation or is Goldstein the "front man" for presenting the church's position?
What’s the main part of the creation story
that is felt discredited by science?
It actually partly depends on which creation story is being talked about. 6000 years does not appear in the Genesis story, for example. It's pretty obvious from looking at the evidence that earth and life are much older than these. Aboriginal cave paintings in Australia have been dated at 40,000 years ago, and the Lascaux paintings in France at perhaps 60,000. A very short time scale is not supported by the evidence… but neither is it an intrinsic part of the creation story. Ellen White's endorsement of Bishop Ussher's errors notwithstanding… and yet there are people who wish to make a short chronology one of the Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA church…
More in a separate post.
Sorry, my error, faulty memory: Lascaux 17,300 years (still considerably more than 6000), and Aboriginal paintings 40,000 years. Plenty of other evidence as well.
The notion that death did not occur until relatively recently is also problematic. Both the DNA record and the fossil record are clear that life attained its current complexity through evolutionary processes. We see these processes going on all around us, all the time. This does *not* reduce to the 'nature red in tooth and claw' caricature we often hear: evolution has developed parrots and butterflies and tropical fish and sugar gliders as well as tigers and great white sharks.
God's role in evolution is one of those complex things – like his role in life right now, it may be unobtrusive, even if very real, simply because we struggle to see things on God's scale. His role can be central, as Creator, yet not visible in the evidence science can see. But whatever God's role, the evidence is clear: life is old and life has evolved.
What nonsense! The fossil record may be clear, but it does not show that "life attained its current complexity through evolutionary processes." Only those who refuse to accept the Bible as God's word can come to that conclusion. I wonder if they would believe in creation ex nihilo, even if they were eye witnesses. I'm waiting for someone to produce an undisputed transitional fossil. There should be millions of them, but there are none. This love affair between professed Christians and the priests of evolution is mind boggling. A paper paper-mâché god has been created, and it is worshiped as if it were all infallible.
Given the subjective nature of dating ancient artifacts, do you really take at face value any date that goes much beyond 6000 years? Those dates are purely speculative. It has been repeatedly shown that radiometric dating is unreliable. Carbon 14 dating is only good back to about 4000 years or so. Only when one has an a priori belief that the earth is millions of years old and that evolution occurred, can they accept those erroneous dates.
Sorry, I can't get rid of the bold face or the color and underlining. I don't know how it got there.
People who are seriously seeking knowledge and understanding cannot accept assertions regarding fossils and dating methods that ignore actual physical evidence. Claiming something exists or does not exist does not make it so. Erv can weigh in on the value of various methods of dating artifacts, but if your mind were open, you would very easily be able to see much evidence that clearly and decisively indicates that modern humans have been around for about thirty times six thousand years. When you argue that "transitional forms" do not exist in the fossil record, it suggests that you have no understanding at all of the what paleontologists do or what the actual fossil specimens are. Just stubbornly claiming that the earth and humanity is only 6000 years old does not make it so, and staking your life and faith on such a premise leaves you very vulnerable. This is a kind of vulnerability you do not need to embrace. Why subject God to such limitation?
Provide one indisputable example of a transitional fossil. After "millions of years" of evolutions, there should be an abundance of them. Stephen J. Gould (no slouch in evolutionary circles) freely admitted the lack of such fossils. His answer was "punctuated equilibrium." That's scientific mumbo jumbo, and really amounts to "making it up as you go,"
If I believed your assertions about humans being around for 36,000 or more years, I'd toss out my Bible and go do something else. There may be gaps in the geneology, but not enough of them to get us back to 30,000 BC. Too much faith is placed on questionable dating methods. Aside from dating methods, the Bible does not provide any wiggle room for evolution to have occurred. It is written, "He spake and it was done; He commanded and it stood fast." Creation ex nihilo. Now, either the Bible means what it says, or there is no way to know what the truth of the matter is. I have more faith in the Biblical record than I do in the speculations of biased scientists.
Horace,
"..I have more faith in the Bibilcall record than I do in the speculations of biased scientists."
Indeed your statement is nothing more than a faith assertion. So the ancient writers they had no "human biases"? With regards to the "biblical record" in genesis that leaves a lot of open territory. How is a story narrative become an historical "record"? The fossil record even incomplete is an observable historical record. If I used your method of thinking I would throw out all my data for any study and not "accept" what my instruments are telling me. Joe is right, conclusions based on physical evidence are not matters of "faith."
Why is the Bible considered the last word on all science–except perhaps, medical science? For those who refuse to entertain scientific discoveries in the many fields, why is medical science fully accepted and sought for answers when needed? For those who believe the Bible answers all such questions, do you go to Leviticus to have skin conditions diagnosed and treated? Or if leprosy seems possible, should quarantine and isolation be the only treatment considered?
The inconsistency of those who limit scientific knowledge in all other disciplines but medicine is a stark reminder that rejection of new information is a condition that cannot be treated by new knowledge. No where does the Bible claim to have all knowledge and all answers and those who make such claims deny it by their actions on a daily basis.
Okay, Horace, first of all, 30 X 6000 = 180,000, not 36,000. There is general agreement on that fact (that 30 X 6000 is 180,000, whether we are talking about years or anything else). Those who refuse to believe people existed more than 6000 years ago, of course, do not acknowledge that any evidence, specimens, or artifacts older than that could possibly exist. No matter what the evidence, they simply refuse to acknowledge it. Because it does not fit the template in their mind, it cannot, for them be true. Period. And if they COULD admit the evidence of age or evolution, their faith would be utterly destroyed. I pity anyone being in such a vulnerable position. To have a faith so fragile that it requires denial of tangible physical evidence from the real world is a pathetic place to be. Why, Horace, would you cite Stepen Jay Gould as an authority on one concept while disregarding practically everything else he ever wrote? And then turn around and say something is mumbo jumbo just because you do not understand it? I'm guessing that Gould probably explained why one would not find the kinds of "transitional forms" you mistakenly think should be so abundant. You not only do not understand what scientists have said and written about evolutionary processes, you are not even slightly INTERESTED in understanding these concepts nor the continuously emerging and enlightening information that scientific research produces. You obviously are highly motivated to NOT understand or believe that evolution could occur or that anything could be older than 6000 years. Warning! Being open to knowledge and evidence can be hazardous to your kind of faith.
Joe,
I think gene knock out models will begin to explain transitional life forms. Transitional forms may have existed only briefly. For example I have my students reading a paper on a mouse knock out model for a neuronal protein. There are two of these proteins and for optimal neuronal motor activity both must be expressed. However, you can knock out one and the animal survives but only for about a month and is not robust enough to reproduce itself.
It is interesting to watch a person defend their faith by denying what science tells us about the history of the world or universe. This weekend someone at LLU is going to tell us how "dinosaurs" fit into a flood model?? That should be entertaining. So what we have is a "scientist" using the same data that the geoscience community has and tries to fit it within a Noachian flood model. Of course there will be a number of us asking the question as to why would someone try to undertake such an endeavor when the biblical stories are known to be allegorical by theologians themselves. SDA theologians to me are complicit in selling the GC view that Bible stories are to be taken literally. They know better.
OK, Joe, so I was having a bad math day. 30,000, 180,000; whatever. The variability and unreliability of the various radiometric dating methods calls into question all of the supposed dates beyond 4500 years.
I'm happy to know that you can read my mind and enlighten me as to what I do or do not understand, and in what I am or am not interested. I have read much of what evolutionists say. It's full of phrases such as "may have," "could have," "possibly," etc. They cannot agree amongst themselves as to which fossils are, or are not transitional forms. I wonder if you ever read any creationists, or do you discount their findings because they are so ignorant as to believe in a literal understanding of Genesis?
I find that you are just as dogmatic as I am on this issue, so that we will never come to a meeting of the minds. I just have more faith in what the Bible says about origins than I do in what scientists say about them. The problem that you and Mr. Taylor have, is that you take a very low view of Scripture. You don't trust it. I do. As for the Genesis record being allegorical: there is no logical reason to take that position. It is only because you believe the scientists more than the Bible that you take that position.
If the Bible cannot be trusted on origins, then how do we know it can be trusted on subjects such as the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ? Why are they literal rather than allegorical? When the Bible is used to interpret itself there is no problem understanding Genesis as a simple historical narrative. Jesus accepted it as such, as did Peter. Were they also mistaken? Was the Holy Spirit unable to articulate the true history of the world?
What liberal theologians have come up with is a convoluted bunch of nonsense.
And I'm wondering why Doctorf finds it amusing that someone would venture to show how dinosaurs fit into a flood model. That's not so difficult. Most fossils, whether dinosaurs or dogs, were buried rapidly by water. That certainly fits into a flood model.
Anyway, what you guys call "evidence" for evolution, I, and many others, call speculative and suppositional at best.
Horace, my guess is that you would dispute any example I cited, regardless of how credible it might be, so I think I'll just direct you (or anyone who is actually interested in learning about this issue) to google "transitional forms" and read the Wikipedia entry–which does a reasonable job of explaining the issues and providing numerous credible examples of "transitional forms" as the term is actually used by scientists–but perhaps not by you, Horace.
Your citation of Stephen Jay Gould regarding "punctuated equilibrium" and "transitional forms" is probably from his paper in 1972 with Niles Eldridge. A lot of water has gone under the bridge in the forty years since that paper came out, and I think the PE versus "gradualism" debate has been knocked about quite alot and the concept has proven to be quite helpful in amplifying understanding of evolutionary processes. In his 1980 book, The Panda's Thumb, Gould wrote the following (mind you, even this was 32 years ago):
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists–whether through design or stupidity, I do not know–as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups." (Page 189)
I'm confident, Horace, that your use of this quotation was "by design," even though it is long outdated and was clearly used in a way we know was not intended by the author.
Assertions and explainations that are based on physical evidence do not need to be "accepted" either, but they can be seriously entertained, discussed, and evaluated on their merits–the process typical of science. Assertions based on DENIAL of actual evidence are not even worth considering seriously, and I hate to see people and institutions based on a foundation of denial.
My understanding is that there are many examples of transitional forms up stairs, but where it really counts, at the basement where we really need transitional forms to be, they are not there. We have the Avalon Explosion and then the Cambrian Explosion, with all the Phyla (body plans) suddenly appearing. Even now Cordata in the Cambrian. Dr. Conway Morris, the expert in these areas, has written and spoken openly about these amazing (non-darwinian) findings, to the point that many are very angry at him.
But even if we had transitions everywhere, I assume everyone would agree that this would not
show that chance and natural selection could add new digital information to the genomes to produce ‘new forms.’
We see worms becoming delicate flying creatures and fish becoming
Four legged jumping land hoppers
but know that these have been pre-programmed to do such.
All the transitional forms in the world will not get the deus out of the machina.
“And I’m wondering why Doctorf finds it amusing that someone would venture to show how dinosaurs fit into a flood model. That’s not so difficult. Most fossils, whether dinosaurs or dogs, were buried rapidly by water. That certainly fits into a flood model.”
I think DoctorF is thinking that if the flood was the water that buried both dinos and dogs, then
one should be able to find them both associated together. To my knowledge there have been no
Mammals found with dinos. Dr. Arial Roth and others have called this the problem of extreme sorting.
The theory of “ecological zonation” where the flood waters buried living things by the ‘zones’ in which
they lived–small animals low and bigger animals who are able
to climb away from the rising waters would be buried in higher strata.
But the problem is, still you should find exceptions to the rule. Does anyone know of any?
I thank David for confirming that I accurately summarized his views to this point and for providing additional clarification. His additional comments help the dialogue because, in my view, they are straightforward and make it easier to understand his points. In my view, they also would appear to provide a means of solving our differences on this topic.
First all, David stated his belief in a “short creation and not one of millions of years.” (I hope that I am correct in assuming that “short creation” means “in 6 literal days.”) To me, the important point here is the basis on which David believes this. It is because he “understand[s] nature through the bible.” I would thus conclude that his belief on this point is not based, in any sense, on scientific evidence. It is based on his theology, specifically his epistemology, i.e., how he interprets statements contained in the bible. What he understands the bible to be saying about origins, etc. provides the basis on which he understands the history of the natural world.
Second, David advanced his view that that “basic issue in the end is not whether we can agree about evolution and creation.”
Third, he says “when we have reached a place where consensus seems impossible can we still agree to respect and love each other”
Putting these three points together, may I suggest that we have a way forward? It would have the following elements: Whether we agree or disagree on this subject, i.e., how creation occurred–by evolution over billions of years or a creation occurring over 6 literal days a few thousand years ago, should not be thought of as important issue within the contemporary Adventist community of faith. Evidence derived from scientific sources about earth history is of a completely different order from that gained as the result of interpretations about the nature of the biblical record. The important issue is whether we agree to respect each other as persons of integrity and members in good standing within the same faith tradition who simply hold different opinions on how God created.
I would ask my good friend David, and others of good will, if that is a way forward?
PS On a very minor point, I just noticed that Horace recently made another statement on this thread which, on a factual basis, is totally and patently false. He stated that radiocarbon dating is “good back to about for 4000 years or so.” Even a high school student would know that this is a completely erroneous statement. He is off by an order of magnitude. The facts are that the method can be routinely applied back to about 40,000 to 50,000 years. Horace needs to get out more often and read more widely outside of the fundamentalist apologetic literature from which he seems to get all of his scientific information.
The "way forward" you suggest cannot happen, because, contrary to what you believe, the issue of creation/evolution, is not a minor one, but a foundational doctrine, upon which rests the whole of Scripture. Throw out the doctrine of creation, and the rest is up for debate and dispute.
As for Carbon 14 dating: because the half life of Carbon 14 is around 5700 years, it should, in theory, be valid up to about 60,000 years. But it is found in fossils which are dated at millions of years old. That fits nicely with an age of the earth of about 6000 years, but doesn't fit with an older earth. Contamination is the face-saving explanaion that is often given. Prove it. Also, there is no way of knowing how much Carbon 14 was in the atmosphere in the antediluvian period. Oh, yeah, you don't believe there was an antediluvian period. Oh, well.
This isn't about the evidence; it's about who or what we put our faith in. You interpret the evidence differently than I do. So be it. But rather than regarding those of us who interpret it in the traditional way as ignorant fundamentalists, why not start your own church and create your own doctrines which are in harmony with your beliefs? The SDA Church is not going to come around to your way of thinking. If it did, that would be its death knell.
I think the problem that both liberal evolutionists and conservative 6-literal-day-creationists both face is that the majority of church members neither comprehend the arguments nor care that much about them. I can't recall in real life (almost 50 years of it) meeting more than a handful of people who care enough to go beyond stating that they believe God created the world, but they don't know how or when. And in almost every case when someone did care, most others present wandered off or started a new conversation. This issue is, unfortunately, in the same category as belief in the trinity: people accept it in theory because the church teaches it, but whether it is true or not has little or no effect on how most if us live our lives, so it doesn't really matter in any meaningful way.
Is there a relationship between consistency and integrity? David chooses to "understand nature through the Bible" but does this also apply to understanding human nature through the Bible or seeking knowledge in neurology and modern medicine rather than what is recommended in the Bible?
Erv, has understood my position very well. Twenty years ago that would not have been my position. I would have been nearer to my very good friend Cliff Goldstein. On a side note I find it fascinating that I count both Erv and Cliff as good friends. The challenge in our denomination today concerns the number of non-negotiables we must have to fellowship together. I am open to just five [I call them the five S's]. See the following:: Salvation, Second Coming, Scriptures, Sabbath, State of the dead. (I still believe in the "28". It is just that we have too many).
I am sitting here gazing out at three beautiful deer grazing in front of my house here in rural Pennsylvania. There is such beauty and grace in nature. I feel fortunate to see the richness of another springtime, and I wish all of you well during this season of renewal.
Of course, those in the southern hemisphere will be reading this during the season beyond the height of summer's warmth–also a pleasant and delightful season. Our perspectives differ. There is no reason all of us should see things the same way.
Horace, I especially liked one of the things you said above. You indicated that scientific writings are full of "may have," "could have," and "possibly." You are quite right about this. If you allow it to, this recognition can better inform you of what science is and does. The scientific process seeks to observe, describe, and measure physical reality, and then often (usually) examines that evidence in the context of previous evidence and explainations and offers additional interpretations or explanations. These usually are presented as probability statements or suggestions of the "may have," "might have," "could have" types you mentioned. They are not meant to be statements of absolute fact. They are meant as suggestions or even "speculation" about what the evidence being considered may mean. The farther removed one gets from the evidence, or the smaller the artifact, or the less clear the context, the less certainty should be expected.
Expectation has a lot to do with this discussion. I expect science to change and make progress. Its "truth" is emergent truth. We can understand something better now than ten or twenty or thirty years ago, and we can expect to understand it better than we do now ten or twenty years in the future. I expect knowledge to change. That is one reason I refuse to be labeled as a Darwinist. So much progress has been made in paleontology, population biology, and molecular biology in the past 100 years that Darwin would be amazed and would hardly recognize science. Everything in science is open to revision based on new discoveries.
In my opinion, expectation that ancient writings could reflect current states of knowledge and understanding seems misplaced. Evidence-based scientific writings from a few decades ago are already outdated in many cases. Further, the scriptures could not have revealed knowledge about the physical world in ways that people of the time could not have understood well enough to appreciate or accept. Why would we expect scripture to contain all the information humans would ever need to know or to do so in a way that people could not understand. The Bible is what it is. People will disagree about what it actually is and what it actually means. Can it be "trusted" on origins? The extent of trustworthyness depends on what is expected of it. Does a story have to be accurate in every detail to be inspirational? Opinions will vary. If The Bible version of creation is not an exact and accurate account of what happened, what about the rest of The Book? Could it be something other than complete and inerrant? Maybe. Possibly. But to some, that is unthinkable. The Bible, for some, assumes a place right up there with triune deity. But if not in The Bible, where can we find absolute certainty? You will not find, and should not expect to find, absolute certainty through science. What you will find there instead is flexibility and emergent knowledge and understanding.
But can you, and should you, expect absolute certainty through The Bible or through faith?
"In my opinion, expectation that ancient writings could reflect current states of knowledge and understanding seems misplaced."
That would be true if the Bible were initiated and written by man. But if, as Pauls says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine . . . .," then I would disagree with you. If one believes that God is omniscient, then one must believe that He foresaw the conditions and the scientific theories that would prevail at this time in history. So, I have more confidence in the "ancient writings" than I do in today's newspaper.
Horace, you are so right about carbon dating just look at the recent events of Mt. Saint Helens (Tuttle River) or 1800's Hawaii volcanoes lava flow. With the Bible being shown to be historically accurate through external evidence of Archaeology confirming many of the events. Prophecies in the Bible that have come to pass as stated throughout thousands of years, I am leaning also on the side of taking God at his Word. The more science finds out the design and complexity of the structure of life taking God at His Word comes even clearer and faith becomes simple.
Perhaps we have reached a point of clarity. For some, scripture is regarded as absolute truth that is essentially complete, unchangeable, and "all we need to know;" and God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, and we are mere humans who must not question, or even think critically about the nature and meaning of life. We must accept scripture and the interpretations of scripture with which we agree.
For others of us, there is recognition that we have brains that equip us to consider the tangible world in which we live. There is also recognition that growth and change are not only possible but inevitable. To us the scriptures are not an object of worship or a set of instructions to be blindly obeyed. These writings are a window on the times in which they were written and a source of information regarding the ways of living and thinking of people long ago. At the same time, they are the writings on which many of the traditions of western cultural development across many centuries have been based. Our opinions vary with regard to what the scriptures mean or exactly how to apply them to our lives, but we respect them and give what we might call "due consideration."
We see in scripture a hopeful and inspiring story that assures us that God cares for us and loves us unconditionally and wants us to make the most of the endowment He has supplied. Some of us see it as just a story–inspiring as it may be. Others see it as much more, without necessarily thinking that everyone else has to see the same thing as we do. Above all, the scripture exorts us to love one another and treat each other as we would like others to treat us. This exortation is not unique to scripture. People from many cultural traditions have arrived at the same conclusion.
Various religious sects attract people who want and need to see the world as a consistent, reliable, and unchangeable place. That is where they find comfort. There is much to be said for absolute certainty and comfort. I'm not quite sure people who insist on this level of certainty are exercising free choice. It might be that they are simply living out a psychological compulsion. Or, it could be that they have it all exactly right and all the rest of us have it all wrong. My guess, though, is that once they have found a religious haven, they are unlikely to leave it, and they are likely to make the place where they are welcoming and supportive only to those with similar views.
It is remarkable to me that some who recognize complexity and change are willing to remain in organizations that are so attractive to people whose styles of thinking differ so much from theirs. But, those who have grown and examined evidence really do have a right to make a claim that the tradition also belongs to them, and that growth and change should be accommodated. Perhaps there will not be a way forward unless those of all perspectives agree to share their environment within a context of peace, love, and tolerance. Is everyone willing to do this?
I, for one, am glad that Horace and All4Him post on this thread of the Adventist Today web site. I think it is important for the rest of us who are interested in evidence and rationality to realize that we are probably in a minority in our faith tradition. Most members want certainty and to have their beliefs affirmed on a weekly basis. Questions and problems they have enough of in their ordinary lives. The church is the place for answers and absolute truth. I understand that. However, on the other side, we must constantly remind the Horaces and All4Hims of our church that Adventism, at least in North America, is a very large tent and those of us who ask questions and would like to be intellectually honest about what our relgious tradition is doing are going to be around for a long, long, time and they might as well get used to it.
PS I'm sorry to do this to Horace. But his comment about Mt. St. Helens and the Hawaii lava flows relates to potassium/argon or argon/argon dating not radiocarbon. Sorry about that.
Ervin forgive my ignorance but I thought radiocarbon dating was for orgainc material not rock. For dating fire ash, old wood, and bones ect.
Point of clarification, Ervin. I said nothing about carbon 14 and Mt. St. Helens or Hawaiian lava flows. I'm well aware of the fact that carbon 14 is used only for dating objects that were once living. If you're going to beat on me, at least attack what I said, not what I didn't say.
Thank you Joe, I agree with you completely.
1 Peter 3:15. “Be ready to share the reason for
hope you have. Do so with kindness and respect.”
Hi,
I’m just sort of stepping in on the tail end of this conversation but I’ve read both parts of this article and most of the comments, and it’s really gotten my mind going. A lot of you have said that you’ve changed and grown your opinions over the years, but I’m just starting on that journey, being only a few years past developing the capability of rational thought. 🙂 So even though you’ve all reiterated that you’ll never convince each other due to staunchly held positions, know that your healthy debate is still beneficial to fledglings like me. And since I am so young, and lacking in education and knowledge, I can’t exactly speak to the scientific side of the argument. But all of your positing has sparked a few thoughts that I just wanted to throw out there.
I’m starting out with a couple of assumptions, (which could easily be argued as well, but that just push the debate further and further back until we’re discussing something entirely different,) but I think they are a good beginning point.
Firstly, the assumption we make as Christians, of God and His power and authority in the universe. In other words, there is a God and whether or not He created through letting evolution run its course, or through a literal six day creation, He is perfectly able, being God, to do either one. Then, it becomes a question of why He used the method that He did, whichever one that might be.
Secondly, I’m also making the assumption that as a human on earth whose ultimate, root need, is for an explanation and purpose for life, I accept the one that makes the most sense to me: The Great Controversy and the context for life that that idea provides me. So then, how do we answer this question in the context of the great controversy?
If indeed we are all here as an exhibit in the case for/against God’s character, and a demonstration of what happens when sin and/or Satan run their course, then we have to ask ourselves the question: when, why, and how did we become this exhibition? The concept of the great controversy answers the, “why?”. God and his omnipotent power answers the, “how?”. Now the remaining question is, “when?”.
Keeping with the framework of everything on Earth being purposed by the debate between God and Satan, we ask: what would the reasoning behind either creating by evolution, or YEC, be? To me, the one that makes most sense is YEC. It seems to me to be the more, let’s-get-down-to-business-and-solve-this-debate approach. Where evolution would meander all over the place for millions and billions of years, to what end? The earth’s relevance to the great controversy starts in Genesis, right? But that leaves innumerable years prior that aren’t relevant in the controversy. For what? When God does things, he does them efficiently and for a reason. (We can see evidence of this in everything that He has created!)
So then, why, if the ultimate point of Earth and its history and inhabitants, is to play a crucial, pivotal role in this great and grand examination of the character of God, why use evolution as means to bring it into existence? There’s no good reasoning for it – that I can see. And whether it seems evidential to us, through our scientific study, that it did play out through evolution, ultimately (as Ervin Taylor pointed out, ) humans don’t know what in the heck they’re talking about when it comes to science, theology, Scripture, etc… We found out that the world wasn’t flat and that the sun didn’t orbit the earth, we could find out, down the road that our giant body of evidence is incorrect and the earth has only been around for a handful of years. Because in the end, we’re so blind and incapable of fully comprehending reality, that trying to explain the world with our understanding of science, is like trying to suck up the entire ocean with a one breath and a straw.
To me this is not a question of science. And maybe it’s not even a question of how we want to interpret the Genesis story. The question is this: The world having come into existence by God, was done in that way for a reason; and we ask, what was that reason? I propose that a literal, contiguous, six days of 24 hours, makes more sense because it would serve God’s purpose in setting up the stage on which to play out this part of the controversy.
Let’s imagine this battle going on in heaven, between God and Lucifer, and someone offers up the idea of an example world, where sin is left to take its course; and wherever it ends up after all of that plays out, will be a testament for either God or Satan. The most logical next step, (to me,) would be for God to say, “ok, let’s make that happen”. Boom. There you go. Six days, we have our petri dish. Let’s do battle in this forum.
That would be my argument for YEC. Now, I propose the question to evolutionists: What would be the reasoning behind God creating the earth through evolution? Find me a solid, logical, convincing answer, and I would be glad to hear it.
Also, feel free to give a rebuttal as well because I’m only just beginning to flex and use my mental muscles and I make no claims to having airtight arguments. If there are gaping holes in my logic, steer me right, cause I'm just trying to get a mental handle on all of this stuff.
I didn't mean for this to be so long, sorry.
You tossed a couple mind-bogglers for us: it has taken me a few moments to inhabit the paradigm as you present it. And it may be that I am unconvinced of your assumptions, that the first questions you asked may be in validation of them. So I will jump up and down on them – intellectually speaking – and see if they maintain their integrity, just for my own clarity.
1) Does it make any difference why God would chose one methodology over another?
No – as long as the gross effect does not deviate from God's intentions. However, in light of the GC case-study, one that most effectively elaborates the consequences of sin, I believe God would use one that points out the futility of creating with a death factor built in.
Nor do we, as entropic characters on this side of sin, have the capacity to evaluate 'life' outside of entropy. Sure, we can speculate of a parallel universe without decay, but even our conjured specters are shrouded with our near-deadness. It may just be that triggering the 'sin' gene gives the inverse-mirror image of life ahead when looking back.
Now, if the garden ploy was to get Satan to eat the fruit …
2) Establishing our existence in death proves of God is Love? I recognize God said His love is a two-edged sword, dividing sons from fathers, mothers from daughters, driving the death-nail in marriage. But if you were created to play out a role in some grudge match between a couple of Archons you might as well assume the position of existential nihilism – at least the futility is not some body else's insecurity.
Where did I go wrong???
P.S. As I was previewing this, I had one more question. Where, if evolution is this case, do humans become humans and either get saved or lost? Are the ancestral apes going to be included in the judgment? Where and when, in evolution, do things stop being things, and start becoming conscious, thinking people? Is it going to be like, "Sorry Joey Neanderthal, your mommy won't be in heaven with you because she was a homo erectus and we're not judging them." There has to be some sort of cutoff point otherwise we're sending dogs and flatworms and sponges and choanoflagellates to heaven. It just doesn't add up, to me.
Perhaps humans, while of great significance, are not the sum total of God's concern. Maybe his concern is greater than just getting humans into heaven. Would it really be such a bad thing if even 'dogs and flatworms' get to go to heaven?
Perhaps another point to ponder: Eve was not the first to sin. If Eve's sin led to chaos in this world, then what effect did Lucifer's sin have on the universe? There must be some reason for the chaos and destruction evident throughout the universe. If Adam's sin brought death to theis world, what/who is responsible for the death of whole galaxies?
I'm not saying that dogs and flatworms being in heaven would be wrong or a bad thing, all I'm saying is, they didn't make that choice. And that undermines my understanding of The Great Controversy.
And to your second question, I do believe that Satan was the first to sin, not Eve. But I also belive that the death in our know realm, be that the earth or outerspace as we know it, started after Eve sinned. It's implied in the Bible that our world was perfect until sin entered it. If you run with the ideas you just suggested, to me, the Bible and it's logic and reason gets totally thrown out the window. And maybe the Bible is less weighty to you, than it is to me, but if I can't take the Bible for what it claims to be, them I'm out of any church completely, I don't belive in God, and I lose all reason for morality.
Perhaps you shouldn't confuse what you believe the Bible says with what the Bible says, nor assume that you know where others are coming from. We (all of us) often jump to conclusions that the facts do not support. I don't know all the answers – I am not even sure I know even most of the questions yet – but in the end, if God is indeed God, we have to accept the facts for what they are and work with them. If the Bible is true, and talks of things in this world that actually happened, then the Bible has to be understood in the context of this world, not some ideal world that we believe should exist.
I believe God created this world. I believe what he tells us in the Bible, when correctly understood, is truth. I also believe that God does not lie or deceive in the created world any more than he does in the Bible. I do not believe we find truth by denying any of the evidence. My faith is in God, and not in the Bible itself. I refuse to start any search for the truth with the positon that God cannot act outside my understanding of how the Bible says he has or must act. I assume that if I understand the Bible correctly, and understand the world correctly, the two will be in basic agreement. It seems to me that too many people start rather with the assumption that their understanding of the Bible is correct. I have been wrong too many times to feel comfortable doing that, and I don't see that most other people have any better record than I do when it comes to being infallible.
Greetings to Emily. I'm pleased to see that you are thinking. I think that is what brains are for. My area of expertise is in primatology, the scientific study of prosimians, monkeys, apes, and humans. Ervin Taylor's area of scientific expertise is in methods of dating artifacts. "DrF" studies physiology and genomics, as you might have noticed. We and others can direct you to evidence that you can evaluate and try to integrate with some of the questions you have expressed. Others on the site will likely urge you to just believe instead of wondering or asking questions. If that approach appeals to you, you should at least consider it.
Feel free to contact me directly if you are comfortable doing that. Please be aware that I am nearly 71 years old, married to Nancy (for >39 years), with three grandchildren, and I live in Pennsylvania. I'm so old that I remember meeting "Uncle Arthur" Maxwell and H.M.S. Richards, who I expect you have heard of. My email address is agingapes AT gmail DOT com (spelled out this way to avoid getting automatically read by the spammers who prospect for email addresses). The "agingapes" part has to do with a project in which colleagues and I study comparative primate neurobiology by obtaining the brains of apes when they die in zoos and the comparisons are also made with human brains–especially from people who died with neurodegenerative disorders, like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, ALS, schizophrenia, ASD, etc.
Anyway welcome. Anyone else reading AToday should also feel free to contact me.
One argument Adventist popular theologians make against theistic evolution is that IF God is seen as submitting to eons of evolutionary time to complete his first opus of creation, what does that say about his ability or willingness to rapidly (rapidity, imminence, etc., being a common Adventist end-time theme) transform in a twinkling of an eye those living and dead who will be saved in the Kingdom of God? Will this too require require eons on end?
Theistic evolution in the Adventist culture just doesn't "sit right." If theistic evolution is the lion and young-earth creationism the lamb, don't expect them in the same philosophical pasture anytime soon. There is great wariness about the lion—however much she protests that she has become a born-again vegan…. That said, some may be seeing the lion as far more bloodthirsty than she really is. I have yet to see one instance of a theistic evolutionist on a crusade to overthrow Adventism's creationist foundation—the issue is not Who, but how long. Let's continue to speak clearly, but with Christlike gentleness, as we ponder one of the most compelling issues of the cosmos.
I grew up SDA, studied religion and theology, among other things, gave my life to Christ without reservation, prayed incessantly for guidance from the Holy Spirit, taught SDA elementary school, colportored, married "within the faith," etc. Eventually, after seeing a bit of the wider world, and going to secular colleges, I began to see how much I had been protected from knowledge–especially real evidence regarding age of the earth, fossil evidence, and a wide range of modern biology. It is astonishing that anyone can find a way of explaining away this information. The only possibility is to utterly ignore the evidence or resort to bizarre rationalizations and paranoid thought processes. The evidence in this regard has only increased over the past 40 years since I left the church, yet the denial continues.
So, I am left being quite sure that I cannot believe what SDAs teach. Science cannot and does not falsify God or anything in any supernatural dimension. That is not the dimension with which it deals. Science is limited to the study of natural phenomena and processes. Am I a theistic atheist? Am I out to destroy Christianity? No, I do not seek to end or impinge on anyone's religion. I am not an atheist, nor am I a theist or Darwinist. I do find the tangible physical evidence very convincing that life on earth has been around a very long time, and that humans are a natural species within the order primates. Exactly how and when life on earth began, I do not know, and as far as I can tell, no one else knows EXACTLY either–except those of whatever stripe, who "know" by belief. The best estimates, in my opinion, are those suggesting an origin of self-replicating molecules more than a billion years ago.
Even so, a positive message of hope, love, respect, and peace, delivered with tender gentleness, seems like a positive force–and a lot like the message Jesus gave, as reported in scripture. I'm just saying, when the message takes a turn toward hatefulness or advocating unfair treatment of people, it doesn't seem so holy or so positive.
For me the time issue is not a central part of Evolution.
The issue really is the the false assumption of natiralism.
For years, the National Association of Biology Teachers offered this definition of biological evolution: “[E]volution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.” Under criticism from Alvin Plantinga and Huston Smith (a prominent religion scholar), the NABT dropped the words “unguided, unplanned,” but the subsequent debate and discussion made it clear that that is still what they meant when talking about random variation and natural selection. See E.C. Scott (2008) “Science and Religion, Methodology and Humanism,” at: http://ncse.com/ religion/science-religion-methodology-humanism.
Darrel, sadly, that is not all that is wrong with the wording. The "random variation" is the most incorrect part. It is now clear that much of the variation is not just "random." For example, the "arms race" between viruses and hosts and mobile elements which introduce a remarkable array of genomic changes. Knowledge about evolutionary processes is always changing. It's a moving target. Sorry, that's just the way things work. Science generates more questions than it answers. Fortunately for those who believe, the scriptures answer all questions even before they are asked. So it all depends on how honest you want to be and how you want to live your life.
Emily, you have asked some questions and made observations from what I perceive is a fresh perspective. This is always welcomed by those of good will that post on this web site. (I can’t speak for the others). Adventism desperately needs fresh perspectives and perceptions. Other responses to your posting have already contributed valuable and helpful insights.
I would like to address your points somewhat obliquely by looking at the historical back drop to how those of us who grew up Adventist used to approach some of these topics. Perhaps you already know most of this or have no interest in history, which is fine, but I wanted to mention some of it anyway in case this might be of interest:
Classical Adventism (by that is meant the Adventism that emerged in the three decades following Ellen White’s (EGW) death in 1915) became one of a large number of small sect-type groups that comprised the far right-wing of American Protestantism in the first half of the 20th Century. During that period, American Protestantism broke into two segments—the Fundamentalists and Modernists. A number of Protestant denominations split at this time over the issues raised by the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy.
The Adventism of that era went with the fundamentalist camp on the subject of evolution. It also tended to go with fundamentalists on the subject of Biblical inerrancy (the belief that there were no factual errors in the Bible) although there was some minor nuancing of that view. However, for classical Adventism, its core source of its authority came from the writings of EGW. Her views reflected the negatives that she read about evolution in the conservative to fundamentalist Protestant literature of her time and how she and the peer group around her understood the Bible (King James version) to be saying. But most importantly, thanks to EGW, classical Adventist theology also became dominated by the so-called “Great Controversy” metanarrative which had been worked-out over several decades by EGW and people around her who she trusted and considered to be her helpers.
It was not until the early 1960s that there began to be consistent questions raised concerning the origins of the intellectual ethos of classical Adventism from within Adventism itself. These challenges primarily came from the relatively small group of Adventists who had been or were in non-Adventist graduate schools at the time in both the humanities and sciences. They were there primarily because Adventist colleges needed to be accredited so that what would become the School of Medicine at Loma Linda University could retain its accreditation.
Over the last fifty years, these questions and answers have expanded to address a wide range of topics that feed into our understandings of how Adventism evolved its theology, polity and general ethos. Research on the history of Adventism has uncovered many events and proceedings that had not found their way into the “standard” denominational history books. Other studies have expanded our understanding of the social, psychological, and cultural backdrop to EGW visionary states. In short, we now know a lot more about how Adventism received many of the ideas that we now are debating.
I don’t know if any of this is helpful to providing a context to deal with the issues you raise. If they do, I would appreciate your comments. If they don’t, just ignore all of what I wrote.
Thank you Joe, is it thought that horizontal transfer increases the information content of genomes?
By “increase” I don’t mean Shannon Information, but new specified information, completely new lines of code for completely new organs and such. This also would be ‘random’ would it not?
Hi Darrel, I think there is no question that changes in heritable information in germ cell lines, regardless of the origins of those changes, constitute variability upon which selection can potentially operate. Any variation at any level of functional organization has the potential to convey advantages (from small to large), disadvantages (from small to large), or neither one.
It seems to me that information that is already highly organized as part of a lentiviral genomic sequence, for example, is already nonrandom information. If it becomes incorporated into the genome of a host, it may already have the potential for taking on some new function.
Forty years ago it seemed to me that the mechanisms we knew promoted replication errors were very limited–to the point that it seemed like selection from genetic variability could not account for the rapidity of evolutionary change as indicated from the fossil record. I began to focus much more on some of the other mechanisms implicated in speciation, such as, small population effects like genetic drift, inbreeding, hybridization, and such. The continuing discovery of a remarkable array of generators of genomic variability really make the operation of natural selection and sexual selection more plausible as major mechanisms in changing the genetics of biological populations across time.
(Others, such as "DrF" can address these issues far better than I can)
James Shapiro said some very interesting things in a January 2012. Huffington Post article on the mechanisms involved in antibiotic resistance. He basically says that machines and codes that are swapted have an unknown “natural” origin, but we do know they were not produced by a Mind. How do we this??
“Living cells are not solely dependent upon vertical inheritance for acquiring DNA encoding new traits; they can definitely acquire DNA by horizontal transfer from other cells, often of different species or even different kingdoms.
Multiple genomically encoded functions can be acquired at once in a single DNA transfer event; Once a complex invention // WHAT?// has arisen in evolution, it is subject to modification and adaptation to a variety of different uses.”
Are we not simply talking about mutations and juggling “inventing” complex code and machines?
Dr. Shapiro goes on:
“How did the first functional envelope-spanning complex originally arise in evolution? Although we can easily reject the supernatural solution of ID advocates //WHY?//, we also have to acknowledge that we still have no clear scientific answer to it.”
“How did the bacteria come to be such sophisticated cell biologists and evolve the capacity to produce molecules that subvert the cell control regimes of higher organisms to their own (i.e. the bacteria’s) benefit? To my mind, this is a far deeper and, ultimately, far more rewarding question to pose.”
Good and honest ending I thought, but still naturalistic assumptions are hindering to see the obvious, I feel!
Emily,
We need new and fresh perspectives from young people which you represent. It is the X generation that will soon be our leaders and will need all the education possible as there is so much more to learn than ever before.
If you keep your mind open to new ideas and never reject apparently contrary positions because they are new and may not harmonize with what was previously learned. Only in being willing to investigate new ideas as that is where growth is experienced. To cease growing is to die.
Like several here who have been Adventists their entire lifetime, that is where I come from; but I didn't remain there as both Adventism and I have changed.
If all new information must meet with a previous assumptions, there is no need to investigate the new. You indicate that you are open to new ideas and that is the best and only place to become a student and a learner. Never be content with what was learned previously and the idea is no need to advance further.
Any time new information disagrees or doesn't appear to harmonize with what was learned previously, remember that this is the entire idea of education: Openness to the new; and all information should be considered provisional–what is true today could be overturned tomorrow. The "core essentials should be few and timeless and never found in specific details: integrity, kindness and respect for others.
Thanks for all of your experienced and encouraging comments. I'm still mulling it over and considering what you've all said. (And I’m not trying to be impertinent when I say this,) but all of you are telling me to keep my mind open and keep searching and trying to understand, but I don’t see any of you really pioneering that, as an example to me. The questions that I posed are honest, from-my-heart questions that I’m trying to understand, and you’ve said that it’s good to have a “fresh perspective” but no one has seemed to attempt to help me work through them or answer them, from that same perspective. You say, “Oh, that interesting and a different angle,” but then you vaguely answer it from the same, tired angle that you’ve all been rehashing since the top of this thread. Where is the adaptability of thought, in that? I don’t understand. And please don’t take this as me being accusatory or taking the offensive, because I’m not trying to. I’m really searching and trying to work this all out, but no one (except maybe Timo Onjukka) has seemed to even attempt to address the questions that I asked. (But I guess that could be a lack of eloquence or ability to convey my thoughts, and I couldn’t blame you for that.) You’re still talking about science or Adventist culture, or history. And I see how the connection is made there, and how it is relevant in a way, but it completely side steps the direct question I proposed.
Elaine Nelson said, “If all new information must meet with a previous assumptions, there is no need to investigate the new.”
Sure, I agree and I get your point. But my point was, in order to debate, this question, you need to start with some sort of base. Because ultimately, any question you can ask, can be questioned. And if you follow that line back and back and back, you’ll end up in some completely different place. Whether we like it or not, we ALL have previous assumptions. That’s why I stated mine, for clarity. There is no way to discuss this topic without having some backdrop to discuss it in. I’m not saying that those assumptions can’t also be wrong, but that’s a completely separate topic.
“Any time new information disagrees or doesn't appear to harmonize with what was learned previously, remember that this is the entire idea of education: Openness to the new; and all information should be considered provisional–what is true today could be overturned tomorrow.”
And that’s exactly what I was trying to do, trace the information back the point where, to me, it did agree. So that’s where I started.
Anyway, please don’t take offense or feel that I’m trying to be impudent, I just didn’t see any semblance of an attempt to directly address my questions.
Yeah, that's interesting. And I've thought about the timeline also. We don't know exactly where Earth came into the picture in the continuum of the story of sin. How long had Satan been fallen? etc…
But the possibility that you proposed still doesn’t give me any insight or inclination as to why it would have been done that way. Why would God have gotten the ball rolling on Earth through evolution? It’s death and decay for no reason. It doesn’t prove any point. It does nothing. The entire purpose of The Great Controversy is to see what happens when living, free, conscious beings, choose either to emulate God’s character and follow His law, or not. Who cares if an ape followed God’s law or not? They don’t have the conscious mind to make that decision anyway. The idea of letting evolution run its course, to get us where we are today, doesn’t provide anything to the case of God or Satan. Those first cells didn’t sin, why should they be subject to death? What’s the point?
I guess you could make the argument that sin affects (like you said) “all matter”, and that’s just a fact of sin, whether any given thing is involved in sin or not. But the how does that fit in with the implied idea in the Bible and EGW’s writings that suggest other, un-fallen beings are watching the controversy play out? Are they then subjected to the first death, also, merely because sin exists, though they haven’t participated?
While you gave a viable possibility, it’s just that, a possibility. It doesn’t explain anything better, in my mind.
Emily,
It's frustrating, isn't it? I'm not the right person to try to guide or mentor or advise you if your goal is to find answers to questions about the supernatural. Even though I was raised as a believer, and I truly grew into faith and believed; eventually, those nagging questions–honest questions such as yours–overwhelmed me. My passionate search for devine guidance and understanding was exhausting. When I got out into the wider world, met people from many different traditions, and saw and experienced more of real life, I think I began to heal. From what? From what I now regard as excessive preoccupation with the vision I had grown up with. From viewing every error of judgement or performance as sin. From a perpetual involvement with the supernatural. From the debilitating struggle to know exactly what to do, or not do, within the great cosmic matrix.
Immersion in the study of psychology, genetics, and natural science worked very well for me. There certainly were and are plenty of mental challenges, but acceptance and recognition that there will always be more questions than answers and that anyone–myself included–could search for truth and discover things that no one else had ever known in quite the same way, all that, encouraged and sustained me, to the point that I feel quite fulfilled at my ripe age.
From my perspective, "The Great Controversy" and all the questions that go with it are far away in fantasy land. I am pretty confident that all that is an invention of the human imagination. And that in itself is a wonder, don't you think? That humans apes can imagine such things? But please do not sell the other apes short. They have a lot of the same cognitive and emotional equipment that we have, and they deserve our consideration and respect. In my opinion, all of nature deserves our attention, respect, and admiration, regardless of how it got here. What is here in the natural world is real. We can appreciate it and learn about it. How can we ever presume to know the mind of God?
I think this is a rather cumbersome process–this blogging. Emily and others, I'm serious about having conversations by email. That is why I included my address above. I have met several people here with whom I have had extended email conversations. I expect that in the future some of these will lead to telephone conversations and even face-to-face conversations. What sometimes can be impersonal and distant does not necessarily need to remain so. Some comments and narratives are too private and personal for posting in public.
Wishing all of you peace and joy.
Well I have to admit, that's discouraging.
The supernatural and an understanding of God and why He does things the way He does them, is what get's me interested. It's those questions that get me thinking. And science, while what I've learned of it is infinitely interesting also, I don't find that as a basis to build my worldview on. Because it is so fluid and changing. How can you anchor to something that's constantly moving? So far in my life, I've found the opposite that you have. The only questions and attempts at answers that have given me any comfort or satisfaction, have been in trying to understand the things that we don't see, because trying to understand those concepts do more to complete my view of reality than just leaving them well enough alone because I can't fully understand them. Even if we can't put together the enitre puzzle of reality, I do think we can uncover pieces of truth that are just that: true. And I try to start from one of those, that I know won't budge. That I know will never change, whether my understanding of it changes or not. To me, science starts us off in nowhereville, and then we try to connect it back to something solid. Where God on the other hand, starts us from something concrete and expands our understanding from there. But that's just what I've found to ring true in my own mind.
I'm probably one of the worst posters here (which is why I rarely do) but it was refreshing to read Emily's posts. She has honest questions about SDA theology which she has had ingrained into her and she is now questioning. Good first move. My first reaction was to say "forget The Great Controversy" which I hate to even legitimize with proper punctuation…but that's just me. I like science fiction but not that one…then I read the more scholarly replies and started nodding my head. You all have written more intelligent replies than I ever could and I encourage Emily to follow your advice. Sheesh…take a World Religion class somewhere, get out of the SDA "house" more often. But that may be hard to do, I dunno. I just always find it so encouraging when a young SDA steps out of the misty bubble that I am grateful for websites such as this one–I WISH there were more! Keep up the good work!
And look out Joe, I've been having a (super positive) email conversation with a retired ex-SDA pastor for 14 years now. Have learned a LOT. 🙂 You game?
Well I hate to say it but I think you just did yourself the opposite of a favor. Because while, you're right, I am honestly searching for answers, what I just got from what you wrote, smacks of jaded bitterness instead of a longing to really understand, wherever that might lead. (Maybe that's not true, it's just the impression that I got.) But I understand your frustration with "the Adventist bubble" and the poor job of disseminating knowledge to the young people. I get it. That's one of the things that weighs heaviest on my heart when I look at me peers. They don't seem to really grasp what Advetism truly does or doesn't teach, and they don't seem to want to. The Adventist church falls flat on its face when it comes to properly educating its youth. But at the same time, I have taken a World Religion class. I haven't been perpetually confined within Adventism, and I've had to try just as hard to figure out what Adventism really is, as I have other religions, despite being raised in an Adventist family. But what I have discovered, is that beyond the politics, beyond the failure to educate, beyond all of the many things that one could take issues with, within Adventism, when it comes down to hard logic and reason and looking at who God is, Adventism is the only things that makes a shred of sense to me. None of the others do, and if something doesn't make sense, I chuck out the window.
So, while I'm certain you mean well when you say things like what you just did, just know that it probably won't give you any traction for your arguements, when it comes to spuring me further into my search. All it read, to me, is cynicism. And though I may, yet, I haven't quite reached that point. Hopefully I'm wrong in my reading of what you said, though. And right me if I am.
Emily
Do not be too hard on your generation. I see the same in mine, my parents see the same in theirs, and Ellen White saw the same in hers. The Sumerian philosphers, and every generation since, dispaired over their generation. Even God at one time regretted making humans. I think we begin to gain wisdom when we realise that we are so much like them, that condemning them is impossible without condemning ourselves. That is probably why God calls us to cooperate with him in changing ourselves, but asks us to love our neighbours. Too often it seems easier to do things the other way around.
There is a saying that God alone is enough, but we rarely realise that until God is all we have. In my experience, remaining an Adventist (and sane) requires that we make God our stable centre, and not only accept the fallibility of our church with all its foibles and annoyances, but embrace it. It is, at times, like embracing a porcupine, but life is like that sometimes. For me, it comes down to a simple question: Is God in this church, and does he want me to be in it? It isn't about whether the church is right in its doctrines and practices (at times it isn't), or whether the people act as they should (at times we don't), or even whether we are happy here (at times we will say 'things can't possibly get any worse', and they will), but whether God is here and wants us to be here.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me you're heading in the right direction. If we have God, all else will fall into place eventually.
Emily, you wrote:
"when it comes down to hard logic and reason and looking at who God is, Adventism is the only things that makes a shred of sense to me."
If Adventism is a way of defining logic, it is one that I've never heard before; as logic is antithetical to religious belief, if it is to be called "faith." Logic requires objective, undisputed evidence and how can any faith be so identified? Logic was often required of all college students which is a great course on defining the difference between asumptions, presumptions, and the many logical fallacies which are quite common.
Decisions made without evaluating thoroughly all alternatives is often too premature. Several here have recounted their journey and it is not always the same today as an earlier time. A truly open mind is in no hurry to make any decision that impedes any further learning.
But, if it makes sense to you, be aware it may not be permanent.
Alle, I'm always up for honest conversations. Please feel free to contact me.
Emily, don't be discouraged too easily. Science is not so etherial. Indeed, as best applied, it is an attempt to nail down and understand real, concrete, objectively verifiable phenomena. It sounds like you are longing for something that is very human to seek–an anchor. And that quest is strong enough that humans can imagine an anchor worth clinging to. That seems to beg the question though, of whether one has FOUND a certain anchor, or merely invented one (or accepted one invented by others). I do not want to go too far down that road with you. It is not my place to lead you along the path I have travelled. What you are appropriately seeking is your own path, your own understanding, and your own faith and goals. That is very personal. All I can say is, you should believe what you can for as long as you can. I find comfort and fulfillment in an evidence-based perspective and life.
I hope to hear from you, Alle.
Hello Emily, great questions! I will through my two sence in. Number One: I would say that your scepticism regarding evolution as a means to any end is well founded. Especially as a method that God would somehow use is oxymoronic because evolution by definition is designed as a philosophy to remove The Creator from any role in life processes.
For example, here are standard definitions: George Gaylord Simpson, the leading neo-Darwinist a generation ago, “Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that
did not have him in mind. He was not planned.” The Meaning of Evolution, pg. 344.
The late Stephen Jay Gould, wrote: “Before Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us,” after Darwin, “biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God.” Ever Since Darwin, pg.33,147and 267.
As Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine explained in the fourth edition of their popular textbook, Biology. They explain that evolution is “random and undirected” and occurs “without plan or purpose.” Biology pg. 658 (these words were deleted in later editions)
As Douglas Futuyma’s biology test puts it: “By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.” Evolutionary Biology, pg. 5.
Number Two: I would suggest reading C. S. Lewis 'Mere Christianity' to give you a solid philosophical foundation to the Great Controvercy, and then Ellen White's book. I would suggest the newest shortened version that has made some corrections in her work. For example the stuff about "living without a mediator" at the end of time on pg. 425 is gone in the newest addition. As I read Brother Joe's response to you about his experience of attempting perfection and hopless in the anxiety of that, my heart sank. It is normally the most honest among us that are hurt the worst by those mis-understanding. Thank God for Jesus, the living Word of God, and the wonder- full Grace
of The Creator, accepting each of us where we are, and loving us to Himself.
Thanks. I'll heed your advice. Is there something specific you wanted to point out, having gathered from those books? Beucase I have read The Great Controversy, (not the newest one, but not the oldest one either. I'm not sure which version,) and I've read parts of Mere Christianity. I've been intending to read the whole thing but I keep moving and all my stuff is in various locations around the country, so I've got to find it. 🙂
Emily,
Sometimes I start at the end of blog commentary and find myself working up to the beginning for some reason.
As a result, I just read your questions and comments and am mightily impressed.
While you may have posed question that mortals cannot answer, it sure seems to me that you are on the right track with your thinking and thought processes.
May I humbly but very strongly recommend that you not get off this track?
Skepticism of anything humans have decided on is a good beginning, because it allows for changes as we find out more stuff, unlike human religious dogma, as you will have found out in any World Religion class whether you believe what you were taught or not. Emily, sorry you think I shot myself in the foot. GC is a nice work of religious fiction IMHO (and I'm being kind in that description…which will auto matically come off as "bitter"–that is the most common word in the past 40+ years I have ever heard in SDA for those who disagree.) If you are SDA, GC is a foundation. I am grounded in science since I am in the medical field and I truly believe my dear sweet SDA parents regret pointing me in that direction altho they sure hoped I'd become a doc or nurse (I am.) :)))
WARNING: controversial content: prepare for TIC and a southern accent.
Timo: a SOUTHERN state claiming it's hate speech? Migawd!! How enlightened! And I hoped things couldnt change down heah. Glory be, they may vote to ordinate women, yet, someday! I vote for taking that book out of prisons myself and I dont consider myself very southern although I do live in TN. Why would we want all those Muslim (Moslem?) prisoners getting all het up about the Catholics? That's so old school." I like your last paragraph and answer your last question with, my southern SDA relatives answer "yeah, probably. Whatever…I turned in my tithe. Long as I dont have to do anything. Man it's hot out. Turn up the a/c. What day is it anyway?"
It is quite common, and I think quite sensible, that many people who were raised as adventists feel that they were "let down" by the church–that they were misled. That can come through as disappointment or bitterness or cynicism, and sometimes it really is. I think most ex-SDAs carry with them some emotional scars. In some cases these can be seriously disabling, and that is sad; but it is also often unnecessary.
There are also some real advantages, I think, to the kind of upbringing we had. The attention to health is one. A commitment to honesty is another. Positive value of education and learning (even if restricted) is another. Urging toward careers in helping professions is also valuable. Emphasis on nature was certainly a big one for me. "State of the dead" was a good point for me. It makes it very easy for me to believe (as I do now) that when you are dead you are dead. I never believed in disembodied spirits or ghosts or Santa Claus, or any of that stuff.
My view that when my life is over it is over motivates me to make the most of the experience and it also leaves me without worries about the "after life." No heaven. No hell. No worries about whether we will see our pets in heaven or whether "original sin" by humans has condemned all other life forms to die.
So, what seemed reasonable to me because of what I was told as a child, came to seem utterly unreasonable and superfluous to me as I matured. I feel sad for those who feel condemned, ashamed, and guilty because of the stories they have been told. Even so, it seems to me that humbleness is in order. I do not think everyone must reach the same conclusions as I have. We can and should love each other and treat one another with respect, and I very much appreciate those here who are loving and tolerant of me and my propensity to write too much and too often.
One last thought. Please don't take to heart the cynical comments of some people who have accepted evolution as fact. Many of them really did not yet understand the processes involved. The emphasis on evolution not having any "goal" or "purpose" is a bit overstated. That our lives are "meaningless" is an unnecessarily cynical view. We are not worthless or evil and we have many opportunities to add meaning and value to our lives. And that may be rather close to the "good news" message attributed to Jesus Christ.
The Great Controversy as "hate speech?" What about the garbage spewed forth every day by the likes of Louis Farrakhan and others of his ilk?
And what in the GC is so implausible that it can be considered to be "far away in fantasy land, and "an invention of the human imagination." The historical sections that deal with the Papacy are accurate. All one has to do is read what they say to know that their core philosophy has not changed. They can't erase their history; it is what it is. Pointing it out is no different from pointing out that the US allowed slavery or illegally rounded up and incarcerated law abiding citizens during WWII, simply because they had the wrong genetic ancestry.
"Human apes?" Not created in God's image? What, Joe, are you doing on a Christian website?
Horace, I know it may be uncomfortable for some to think of humans as animals, as mammals, as primates, and as apes, but biologically speaking, that is what we are. Those are our affinities and where we sort out on the basis of morphology and genomics. We can wonder about why that is true, or not.
Taken at face value, your question about what I am doing here "on a Christian website," suggests to me that you think it is inappropriate for me to be here, although I must not pretend to read your mind. Your question warrants an answer. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I was raised as an SDA, attended SDA schools and even taught in one. I studied religion and theology, among other things, in an SDA college. I was a deeply committed Christian. I am no longer an adventist or Christian, but I am interested in how those who are see the world, and how they feel about objective evidence that seems contradictory to SDA beliefs. I have found quite a wide range of perspectives here.
"Not created in God's image?" As you know by now, I think it is far more likely that God was created by mankind than the other way around.
Emily, I resonate with your questions. The first and most important point is that everything is subjective. Now that is a bold statement. We agree when our subjective states agree. Take the Supreme Court of the United States for an example. We have a written constitution. It ought to be pretty clear what its meaning is. Yet in the current debate over "obamacare" many people are suggesting that the final decisions on a number of points will be 5 to 4 for or against. What made the difference? Not the constitution. It was the subjective philosophy of each individual judge.
It is the same with the Bible and with Science. With the Bible we have a written document. How we interpret it depends on our philosophy, our biasis, our subjectivity. With Science we have the same thing. We have many scientists who believe that evolution is how our world began. We also have many scientists who believe that God created our world in six days. We have the same facts but we interpret them differently.
Many scientists interpret the Bible through science. Many scientists interpret science, nature, through the Bible. All of us come to our subjects with basic assumptions. The Christian comes with the assumption there is a God. That is a faith statement. Many scientists come with the assumption of uniformity in the laws of nature. That is a faith statement. If you question that assumption then all other kinds of possibilities open up.
Even theistic evolutionists come with different assumptions. Some believe that God created the world through evolution, natural law, but allow for miracles in the Bible which are not part of natural law. Others come with the assumption that we cannot accept the miracles of the Bible but will make an exception for the death and resurrection of Jesus. That is a faith statement. Others will not accept any kind of miraculous event.
So how do we sort through all of this? If Christian evolutionists will allow for miracles as recorded in the Bible then why not allow for miracles throughout the evolutionary process. Why would God use natural means until humans came into being then start to allow for many exceptions? Then we have to define what we mean by evil. Is death evil? Why would God use death throughout his creative process, especially when the Bible calls death an enemy? If death was good in creating the world why should it cease to exist in the new earth? Why not keep death as part of life for ever? If science is accurate in how life began is it accurate in how life will end? If the Bible is correct about life in the new earth it seems very clear that different physical laws must operate there. If God can change the laws at the end of time why could he not change them throughout time? And the biggest question of all–when did evil enter the universe and what effect did evil have on the universe?
I have asked too many questions already but I want to come back to my beginning point. Subjectivity will always reign just as we see on the Supreme Court. Everything must be measured (for Christians) by the cross of Jesus. Does what I believe bring me closer to Jesus? If believing in evolution brings me closer to Jesus, makies me want to live more like Jesus, if believing in evolution gives me confidence in the God of the universe and a longing to meet him one day whom am I to question the basic assumptions of that person. If believing in evolution helps me realise that I am a sinner and need a savior then I can embrace that person.
Paul learned the hard way that in the end the only thing that really counts is Jesus Christ and him crucified. He wrote, 1 "And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." (1 Cor. 2:1-2).
If the Bible is correct about life in the new earth it seems very clear that different physical laws must operate there. If God can change the laws at the end of time why could he not change them throughout time? And the biggest question of all–when did evil enter the universe and what effect did evil have on the universe?
Had God wanted man to know he could have told us, couldn't he? As to the devil entering the universe, there is so little mentioned in the Bible on this subject as to time and the reason, man's curiosity demands an explanation simply because of the innate curiosity he has. There is no mention of the devil until much later in the Hebrew Bible, after they had been influenced to a Satan by the Persians. No mention of Satan until Job, and no date can be substantiated, merely speculation.
Many of our beliefs are based on "ifs" or assumptions. Is it not possible that we have no definitive evidence for Creation except a few, very sparse verses in the book of Genesis and man has elaborated on creation based on human description of an event they did not, could not have observed? Of such paucity of information have many religions been founded. (Think–Mormonism.)
wa
Joe: you sound a lot like the former SDA pastor whom I was referring to. He wasnt raised SDA–I think that really makes a difference. Perhaps you two should start a website.
I'd prefer my silly comments to be read as cynical (from objective experience) rather than bitter (from subjective disappointment), because that always seemed like such an easy copout.
And many times I've wished I could've put into words the succinctness of your last post . In your last paragraph the part about evolution, I get: what "we" think we know about our origins (outside of bronze age opinions in a book…well, I wont go there…) we are surely looking thru a glass darkly yet altho electron microscopes are pretty spectacular! And I'm pretty sure there are much better ones than that nowadays. I've been out of school awhile. All I know is that my best professor of Biology was happiest when he was looking at the smallest possible objects under a microscope and getting new information from it (and I was never anywhere near LSU) and showing it to us students. Now that's what I call education. We might not have known what we were looking at but we knew it wasnt dogma.
There is one great difference between the Bible and Science: The Bible cannot be changed; much of it written more than three millennia ago and anything within its pages can, and has been interpreted ad infinitum. Science is ALWAYS provisional: even what is accepted today may no longer be true tomorrow.
The Bible contains many supernatural accounts. Sadly, it seems that more emphases is given the miraculous than the simple principles left by Jesus that need no analyses or interpretation. The principles can be understood by children and are not difficult to understand.
Scientists do not attempt to explain the supernatural as it cannot be investigated by any known methods. It is something that either must be believed or rejected; the supernatural is always subjective while scientific positions must be objectively tested numerous times before they become accepted. This is the proposition left us by Stephen Jay Gould which offers the best answer to the dilemma in trying to harmonize faith and science: they are entirely separate dimensions and one can be a believer and still accept science IF he does not attempt to use scientific testing to validate beliefs.
Are there any tests for religious belief to validate truthfulness?
If you feel unloved and alone,
there is a promise of unconditional love.
If you feel hopeless and helpless,
do not fear, because there is hope and there is help.
If you feel guilty or falsely accused,
you are assured of amnesty.
If you feel lost or estranged,
there is a joyous welcome home.
Such is the message of Jesus,
and the message is true for you if you believe it.
Joe
Thank you for your post. How true it is. It is because of Jesus that I have meaning in life. All I ask is that day by day He will make me more and more like Himself.
So, the bit I wrote above is the way I see Christianity. It does not need to be much more than that. A simple message that anyone can understand, and if they can believe, they can put away most of the fears instilled in them by their religious traditions. This message, it seems to me, was principally for the Jewish people who lived 2000 years ago. Their religion had become oppressive. People felt hopeless and burdened with guilt, largely as a result of the religious dogma with which they had been raised. The message of Jesus was that people should stop beating themselves up with all this legalistic tradition and endless speculation about the mind of God.
People were feeling "lost" because they were being falsely instructed in ways that suggested that they were unloved. Jesus seems to have been saying, "don't believe that–you are loved, so much that I will even give up my life to free you. When you know the truth, you will be free."
So, it seems to me, being open to the truth–objective truth about reality and following it wherever it may lead–puts us on the path to freedom from all the mistaken and misleading information we have ben given as children and young adults from a tradition that has all too often instilled guilt and shame where love and peace and confidence should dwell.
Joe,
You understand what it means to be a Christian better than most Christians I know. Christianity at is core is very very simple. Yet, because it is dealing with the Creator it is incredibly complex. The tragedy is that we use the complexity to obsucre the simple, the core.
I agree with David, Joe. Would you mind if I quote part of your last post in a sermon?
It must be a human trait: people are not satisfied with simplicity but have an innate desire to complicate what should be simple. This leads to the provocative article by Andrew Sullivan who suggested leaving religion and following Jesus. When Christianity becomes a maze of doctrinal statements to be called a Christian, it is contrary to the message of Jesus: "Follow me."
This raises the question: Is someone only a Christian when she belongs to a
denomination? Must membership in a denomination be a requisite for claiming to be a Christian?
Elaine has made an insightful comment: "People are not satisfied with simplicity but have an innate desire to complicate what should be simple." I recall the comment that human brains are pattern making organs. We create structured patterns in visual objects even if, in fact, no such pattern exists. We project on a random assemblage of spots and lines and create a pattern. I'm told that is why the Rorschach approach works to pull out of people the unconscious parts of themselves. Religions ideologies of various tyeps might be viewed as Grand Rorschah projections..
Hi Emily, I missed your question earlier.
Yes, I think the first 4 or 5 chapters of Mere Christianity
are helpful with understanding the Great Controvercy from
internal angle. He explores the controversy that we all carry
around with us between good and evil. Our inner psychology
offers strong evidence, not only that we are far beyond what
Mutation and NS could or would make us, but also confirms
that the Great Controvercy locally is true and it makes sence
as a Cosmic Conflict due to creatures with Free Will.
Hey, David and Darrel, thank you for your kind words. I should add that my experience as a Christian was to grow out of perfectionism into accepting the message of Jesus as best I could see it. The part that I had a lot of trouble with was really letting go of the obligation to obey. Obey what? God's will? What was that? I begged to know…. If there was an answer, it eventually seemed to me to be "Believe me, you are truly free." And maybe, "Don't worry so much about it. Live your life. Learn. Test your wings. Go free."
I am flattered when anyone quotes me. I think its is gracious of you to ask permission, but whatever is posted here is, I think, in the public domain. I would be interested in what you feel is worth quoting and what you will use it to illustrate–but that is all optional. Remember, my gmail address begins with "agingapes" (not in quotes).
The human "mind," and the brain of which it is an emergent function, is marvelously complex and quite wonderful. It is, however, biological and natural, and it is subject to the consequences of replication errors and other biological processes that result in change–some of which even compromise free will. I am a little concerned that assertions regarding mind and free will "confirm" the GC as a "cosmic conflict." In what universe is such a statement logical?
Hi Joe, I simply meant to say that our degree
Self-determinacy and powers of introspection
(our ability to do science, math, music, physics
and ethical deliberation, as Paul Davies says, “so much
more exceeds our “survival needs.”) allows us to
understand that there is a right and wrong. Not that we
know what the right and what the wrong are always,
but trying to be responsible do what is right is kind of
a reflection of the GC I feel.
There is some determinacy for us, but we are able to interact morally
with our environment. Yeeee, long answer; sorry.
Thanks, Darrel. I am probably oversensitive to assertions about human uniqueness–being a primatologist who has observed and known many nonhuman primates. As you may know, a number of chimpanzees and bonobos and gorillas and some orangutans have been taught sign language or other systems of communication ("Washoe," "Koko," "Michael," and others) . Some of the systems invented to enable apes to communicate have been provided to nonverbal humans, and in some cases, this enabled remarkable advances in language skills for those humans (see "Lana" chimpanzee and "Yerkish"). Some chimpanzees consistently outperform humans on specific cognitive tasks (e.g., "Ai" chimpanzee of Kyoto University). Detailed comparisons of human brains with those of the other great apes show many similaries and some differences. Even my dogs give evidence of volitional control (e.g., ringing a bell by the door to go outside or come back in–not trained as a trick, but provided to enable communication). Just my perspective….
Apologies. I should not have left out "Kanzi" bonobo, one of the most remarkable of great apes. Google him.
A point that should not be missed is that functioning beyond the minimum level required for survival is usual for nonhumans. Even nonhumans are equipped with a safety margin, as well as the potential to innovate and opportunistically enter new ecological niches.
Emily and others,..
I notice it was suggested you read some C.S lewis. I also note your questions about evolution vs special creation and the great controversy theme.
First: Can I point out that there is much enthusiasm to point to Lewis when it comes to supporting Christianity. Most who do this fail to realize he was essentially a theistic evolutionist. Here is a link which may give you some insights into this aspect:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/religion/evolution_lewis.htm
I appreciate in your questions (much ealier) that you pointed out your own assumptions. eg that you accept the GC theme is the best explanation etc.
I held all those assumptions once. May I suggest a way to test any assumptions you have or evaluate?
: Begin where you are. Full stop. Look at the concrete reality of life, this world, nature, and what is and let it describe itself. You don't have to be a scientist to see very quickly that a YEC theory, and a GC theme become difficult to fit into observable reality.
You asked: "What would be the reasoning behind God creating the earth through evolution?"
Does not this question demonstrate a pre existing bias? ie that the reason for which God created the world some other way (GC YEC) is Better!?
If so, why is it "better"? Could I submit it is only "better" from how you or I may "feel" about it?
I think the better question would be "Which suggested explanation of how the world and life came to be best fits the world and life I see?"
If you really, really really put aside your pre-judices, assumptions, and childhood training, you might come up with a different answer than you expect.
Anyway, as others have said…great you are asking questions.
Cheers
Dear cb25, thanks for your comments. Of CourseI am just saying the the first four chapters of MC are a great philosophical foundation from an internal moral/psychological view, for seeing the theme of a Great Controversy. In these chapters he does not mention Christianity. For me a GC theme is very much "observable reality."
Asking the question if it is logical that God would create life through evolution, depends on what one's working definition of evolution is. I am simply pointing out that the working definition of evolution that is the standard, "by definition," rules out God. It is a "natural process." If you doubt me, please refer above to some citations above to the post I sent to Emily. If we use 'evolution' to mean 'development,' well of course that would be another situation. Ever since I took biology from Ms McKenly in 9th grade to a biology major in college, I was a 'theistic evolutionist.' After time and study I realized that not only was this really a counterdiction, but that the evidence for mutation and selection is not there. This theory has been effectively falsified.
Darrel, Darrel, Darrel…. Seriously? "…the evidence for mutation and selection is not there. This theory has been effectively falsified." Asserting this, and wanting to believe it is true, just does not make it so. I don't mind all that much if you change terms that are often misused or mischaracterized to more precise and better defined terms, but surely the role of genomics in development is beyond dispute, even as we continue to improve our understanding of the mechanisms involved. Advances in knowledge only better describe the processes by which ontogenetic change occurs and how "gene" representation changes over time in biological populations. After all, the whole point of studying such things is to discover how thing actually work in the real, tangible, physical world. A good case can be made for a "great controversy" between viruses and their hosts. What value is there to making up an unknowable domain and then speculating about what and how and why and when events in that dimension mean? There's no there there….
"What value is there to making up an unknowable domain and then speculating about what and how and why and when events in that dimension mean? There's no there there…"
Isn't this what we usually do: choose our model and retrofit the existing facts to fit within that model? This is seen over and over again in those who have ALREADY decided that that their choice is the right one. It's like an infatuated lover falling madly in love with someone and then seeing all her many wonderful traits, while being oblivious to all faults because the decision has colored all possibility of error? We are all subject to previous biases to justify our choices.
Recently, there seems to be an eagerness to "shoehorn" many political comments made by those public figures into an imminent Catholic-Protestant takeover culminating in national Sunday law; but only those with "eyes to see" have been given that unique visual ability.
.
You tossed a couple mind-bogglers for us: it has taken me a few moments to inhabit the paradigm as you present it. And it may be that I am unconvinced of your assumptions, that the first questions you asked may be in validation of them. So I will jump up and down on them – intellectually speaking – and see if they maintain their integrity, just for my own clarity.
1) Does it make any difference why God would chose one methodology over another?
No – as long as the gross effect does not deviate from God's intentions. However, in light of the GC case-study, one that most effectively elaborates the consequences of sin, I believe God would use one that points out the futility of creating with a death factor built in.
Nor do we, as entropic characters on this side of sin, have the capacity to evaluate 'life' outside of entropy. Sure, we can speculate of a parallel universe without decay, but even our conjured specters are shrouded with our near-deadness. It may just be that triggering the 'sin' gene gives the inverse-mirror image of life ahead when looking back.
Now, if the garden ploy was to get Satan to eat the fruit …
2) Establishing our existence in death proves of God is Love? I recognize God said His love is a two-edged sword, dividing sons from fathers, mothers from daughters, driving the death-nail in marriage. But if you were created to play out a role in some grudge match between a couple of Archons you might as well assume the position of existential nihilism – at least the futility is not some body else's insecurity.
Where did I go wrong???
Thanks Joe, we might agree more than we think. I am thinking more at the base level of things. But even there huge mis-understandings exist. For examle, naturalists will offer proof for evolution by showing bacteria that have become resistant to certain antibiotic such as penicellin. When penicellin was first discovered, all the gram positive cocci were susceptible to it. Now 40% of the bacteria Strep pneumo are resistant. Yet, the mutation to DNA that makes Strep pneumo resistant to penicillin results actully in the loss of a protein function for the bacteria (penicillin-binding-protein).
A mutation occurred in the DNA leading to a bacterial protein that no longer interacts with the antibiotic and the bacteria survive. Although they survive well in this environment, it has come at a cost. The altered protein is less efficient in performing its normal function.
In an environment without antibiotics, the non-mutant bacteria are more likely to survive because the mutant bacteria cannot compete as well. So as you can see, the bacteria did adapt, but it came at a loss of function in a protein of the bacteria, loss of genetic information in the DNA of the bacteria, and it also lessened the bacteria’s overall fitness for survival. Scientifically, it is better to say that the bacteria actually devolved in accordance with the principle of genetic entropy, instead of evolved (Sanford; Genetic Entropy 2005).
Other observed adaptations of bacteria in new environments have been proven to be the result of such degrading of preexisting molecular abilities. Sometimes a complex adaptation in bacteria is exhibited by naturalists (Hall’s gene knockout experiments) that defy tremendous mathematical oddes. Yet far from confirming evolution as they wish it would, the demonstration of a complex adaptation of a preexisting protein actually indicates another higher level of complexity in the genetic code of the bacteria that somehow found (calculated) how to adapt a preexisting protein with the very same ability as the protein that was knocked out to the new situation (Behe, Evidence For Design pg. 138).
To make matters worse, the complex adaptation of the protein still obeys the principle of genetic entropy for the bacteria, since the adapted bacteria has less overall functionality than the original bacteria did.
A proof for evolution in bacteria is found to be wanting for proof of evolution since it still has not violated the principle of genetic entropy. Even the most famous cases of adaptations in humans, such as lactase persistence, the sickle cell/malaria adaptation (Behe, The Edge of Evolution 2007), and even long term immune system responses of humans, genetic entropy is still being obeyed when looked at on the level of overall functional genetic information. The digital code of DNA, the epigenomic histone code and all the other programs of life were created by a Mind. Organic computors of such sophistication that they are still beyond our conceptional abilities to understand should cause us infer Design.
Darrel, I think we really do need to get basic with this. And I agree with you that much misunderstanding, or at least, differential understanding occurs. Genomic and proteomic and epigenetic discoveries are occurring at such a rapid pace that it is difficult to keep up. Not only that, the "spin doctors" are furiously at work. People with limited understanding are spinning all sorts of interpretations, and others are repeating and citing distortions as if they were factual. While there apparently is some "entropy" in natural systems, it seems to me that the term as it is used in these arguments is not well supported by tangible evidence.
There seems to be confusion about what processes are operating at the level of the individual and what processes are operating at the population level. Also, the rather general term "mutation" seems to carry with it many assumptions that are less than accurate. Have a look at information on single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and copy number variations (CNVs). These are quite common occurrences. Many of them do not actually code for proteins, or, if they do, they produce protein varients that are not much different in their effects from the original. These are inaccurate copies, but many of them do not cause problems that rise to the level of inadequate function. If a number of these inaccurate copies taken all together impairs function sufficiently, the individuals with those problems tend to be eliminated from the population–leaving a population that is less likely to include members with the harmful variant of the polymorphism.
Have a look at the virus-host "arms race" papers. I imagine Behe, et al., are trying to spin those also, but if you look at the original papers, I think you will see some of the possibilities.
Darrel,
You make several points, and conclude with this:
"After time and study I realized that… that the evidence for mutation and selection is not there. This theory has been effectively falsified."
Joe is correct, and I totally disagree with this. BUT, for arguments sake let's say you are correct.
It is a straw man anyway. You have moved the issue miles from "where you are". I said to Emily: begin where you are, look at observable reality. You take the issue straight back to where an element of "doubt" and presence of "interpretation" of data can "allow" you to shape that data into your pre-existing world view and bias.
Bring it back to where you are standing: Tell me, what do the following say about the age of our world and the time and process possibly involved in its journey?
The White Cliffs of Dover. The peat bogs under the sea and beaches of Normandy. The entire Geologic Column beneath North Dakota, with (at just one level) enough crinoid shells to cover the earth in three inches of material. The presence of tens of thousands of cubic kilometers of salt beneath parts of the Gulf of Mexico and USA. (Some with corals on top). The presence of fossil fuels up to 8 kilometers under the sea of Israel, under Egypt and parts of Sinai – all in a land unchanged since Abraham sat by a campfire. Fossil corals and marine life (primitive or non existent forms) in the deserts of Egypt. Pyramids made with limestone full of fossil shells – all cut from the same landscape described as present immediately after Noah's so called flood. The presence of 500 cubic kilometers of salt under the Dead Sea, in a rift valley that stretches up into Africa for thousands of kms and which is rich in fossil data of human life forms and inhabitation. The fossil coral reefs hundreds of feet below the Great Barrier Reef of the coast of Australia. Burning Mountain near Winjin in New South Wales, Australia.
I could go on, but my point is: forget the science for a moment, as good and important as it is. Put aside the straw men and look at our world. A simple look at these things I have mentioned – things you can look at, you can kick with your feet – tell us one thing: It's all a lot, lot older than 6k yrs and life in some form or another has been around for a long, long time…
Explain them otherwise in a simple, logical manner that does justice to common sense and that will give credibility to your killing of the straw man:)
Cheers
Darrel,
Allow me to pick up another of your points:
"…I am simply pointing out that the working definition of evolution that is the standard, "by definition," rules out God. It is a "natural process." "
So What? Are you telling me that my/your faith in an invisilbe God, who's presence can be pretty hard to "prove", and which is ultimately a matter of faith – is the ultimate proof that evolution is wrong?
You have made massive assumptions: That God's presence is (apparently) more provable than an evolutionary process? That creation must be, what an "un-natural process"? That in fact God cannot or did not use a "natural" process?
If the observable reality leads us to believe in an evolutionary process that does not require the obvious presence or action of a God, then lets find better reasons why we can believe there is a God. Let us not deny reality to uphold an invisible entity.
As was noted in the link about Lewis, such a position leads to loss of credibility for Christianity. A Christianity which should have nothing to fear if it was genuinely prepared to be "reduced" to the essence of the great poem/verse Joe posted earlier. A verse which so many applauded, but very few are willing to let the full stop at the end be the end. We fling a thousand "buts" on the end!
Cheers
Does the fact that the Genesis account admits that prior to the creative acts of the six days, “the earth was (without form, and void)” imply that something was here, or had been existing, for an undetermined length of time (or duration)?
Man can observe nature; man cannot observe God. One can choose to believe his own eyes, or simply believe in God without any visible evidence.
Stephen,
The answer is "yes". However the question is only valid if one takes Genesis as the authority to answer it. Your question admits that you allow Genesis this authority, but also demonstrates that you are trying to find an interpretation which can fit an old earth because, presumably you see this is most likely the case.
Pleased to see that. The problem is there will come a point not far beyond admiting Genesis to present a "pre existing earth" where you can no longer fit other very observable data into the Gensis framework. What then?
Huh? Based on the Genesis narrative saying that “the earth was without form, and void,” and that alone; I am totally agnostic on the age of the earth. (You should have known that by now.)
Actually, my question simply demonstrates that the Bible may—or does—provide an answer to your belief in an old earth.
The rest of what you find problematic between the Genesis narrative and what you believe to be contradictory evidence disproving it is your personal concern; and not mine.
Why would God give any of us views of a construct that did not include death and decay?
“One only has to contemplate the magnitude
of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.
Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation!”
Dr. George Wald, Nobel prize-winning biologist of Harvard
(NOT A SPIN DOC)Scientific American: The Physics and Chemistry of Life
(Simon & Schuster, 1959), 9
Are we saying that since Dr. Wald’s time we have now
been able to show how spontaneous generation of life is possible
Or is still as Elaine would say an act of faith?
Darrel,
Forgive me, but this is another straw man. The question of how life began is not the question of how life became what it is.
First you say that because evolution is a "natural" process it forces the conclusion there is no God. Now you suggest that because we cannot say "how" life began, this forces the conclusion that evolution cannot be. Both are false assumptions.
You have taken the issue so faaar from where you stand – observable reality – to a staw man out in the nether regions of philosophical debate. Surely we cannot falsify something with such a leap in logic?
kLutz, I don't understand your question? Can you help me out please?
Do they no longer teach logic in college today?
If they did, the evolutionary hypothesis would have been rejected long ago. It cannot stand up to the light of good logic.
Of course logic is still taught in colleges–in philosophy departments, along with epistemology, ethics, etc.
Another, of many, unfounded assertions, brother Horace.
False premises usually lead to false conclusions. One is bound for trouble if one insists on starting out with false assumptions.
False premises do lead to false conclusions, which is why the theory of evolution exists. They start with false premises, and we see the conclusions they have drawn. But they (and many who should know better) will defend those false premises as if their lives depended on them. Which is what I meant by evolution notstanding up to the light of logic. I did not, as Timo falsely stated, say that logic proves religion; only that logic unmasks the errors of evolutionary thinking. Zophar (Job 11:7) askes the pertinent question, "Canst thou by searching find out God?" By logic, no; by searching the Scriptures, by experience, yes.
I imagine most would agree that Zophar's question, along with some of his other questions, taken in context seem to be rhetorical. Can you find God by searching? He is saying, I think, no, of course not. But it is not as if that question, as a quotation from Zophar, can be seen as the inerrant voice of God. So, what in the world does your use of this quotation even mean? You can't find God by logic, and yet, you think logic disproves evolution? So, is logic valuable or not, and, if so, for what? I do not see much of it in your discourse. I have struggled to be civil, but I think I have failed in that effort. So, anyway, I wish you well, brother Horace. Sometimes people just don't find much on which they can agree.
Yes cb25, I forgive you. Let’s forget about God
and simply look at the origin of first life, because
this is where we must begin. Why is it a straw man
To ask if spontaneous generation of life
has been demonstrated?
I do not know how life began. It seems reasonable to me that chemistry could have produced some chemical template that assembled a mirror image copy of itself, which could have served as the next assembly template. I certainly do not know whether that happened. It is nothing more than a guess on my part. A designer or God might have played a part in the process. I do not know. As far as I can tell, no one else knows either, even though some claim that they are certain.
What we do know is that there is abundant evidence of life forms back to several hundred million years ago, and of primate mammals back to about 65 million years ago. Primate fossils are real. Extant humans and other extant primates really exist! You can touch them. And now, for the first time in the history of the world, you can examine and compare their genomes. Nobody, no matter how bright, knew 50 years ago about what would be found in modern genomic sciences. Not knowing exactly how life began does not negate the abundant evidence that life on earth is very, very old. Admitting that, and admitting that life forms changed across enormous spans of time does not address the issue of a super natural domain at all. It is only natural, with no evidence at all of supernatural intervention. This not to say that there could not have been supernatural forces impinging on natural processes. Science simply has no way of detecting a spiritual domain.
No one is asking you to forget about God. The request was only that you look around at the natural world.
If I start where I am, I see the law at work
the information allows, without exception, allows
arises from Mind–nothing breaks this rule!
cb25
If we are embued with sin, if that is the paradigm we are established in, why would He not emplace us where it could best be observed: irrepressive death and decay established in a moment of doubt?
Darrel & kLutz…
I'm a bit of a dimwit on that one. I still don't think I get either of those points, let alone how it fits into the points I made? Lost:(
Darrel,
You say we must begin with the origin of first life. It is certainly a valid discussion point, but it is even more certainly not the place to begin. To answer such a question (which as Joe very well says cannot really be answered) should be done a posteriori. The logical and common sense place to begin building an a posteriori case for origins is where you stand: the natural world around you!
Your desire to move the issue back to origins looks to me like you cannot explain simply the things within the list I gave you earlier. Honestly, it comes across as avoidance because you know that if you give simple, logical answers, it will incriminate your world view and assumptions about GC etc.
If I'm wrong, fine. Tell me. But…I would appreciate you actually respond to the points instead of racing of into questions which should come much later. As Joe said: no one is asking you to forget about God. The request was only that you look around at the natural world.
Cheers
Forgive my spelling: ALWAYS.
Mine too, Darrel. Now I have another problem. I hope you don't "mind" my asking. "Mind" is a very slippery concept. I have trouble seeing how it applies here. What do you mean by the term as applied to God? You should feel free to assert that I seem to be "out of my mind." Let's all have a laugh and lighten things up a little. We are just having a chat among friends, right?
It's always nice to see you here, Chris. How are things in Wagga?
Thank you cb25. I understand what you are saying,
and I thank Joe for his insights. I am not trying
To me argumentative, but to the questions I am
focusing on, the age of the earth or the age of life
do not effect. Before I go on let me hear what
you hear me asking. I feel we are missing each other.
cb25
It is not surprising that in a given context viewing the evidence from an obtuse perspective the premise and questions that arise are not concurrent or antithetical, thus applying it to your situation could induce confusion. It requires stepping back from one's cherished belief and recognizing where our stuckedness in circumventing the logic of it's oppisition precludes alternative solutions. Generically speaking.
IOW, how does one objectively evaluate his environment as long as he is subject to it?
kLutz,
Ok… I get your IOW at least. I will anwer with a question: The list of observable realities I put to Darrel earlier – are you telling me that it is impossible to evaluate them in any objective manner? A simple Yes or No will do. Then I will come back to your point.
Darrel,
I hear you wanting to either discuss or use the question (and your conclusion) about how life began, to trump or dismiss the topic (which I believe was the one under discussion) as to how life and our world became what they are today.
Joe, cool! Literally cool. Sydney has just had its coldest mornings on record for 79 years. Wagga hit the frost zone and we are all suffering from rapid climate shift! I've been staying out of AT because I get tired of discussions that seem to get lost etc.
Cheers
Dear cb25, are you from Sydney? My wife and I
had very good friends from Sydney when we lived
In Nara Japan. We had so much fun together.
That was like 22 years ago. When they moved
back, they wanted us to visit, but we never could
find time. Cheers to you!
Darrel,
We are in Wagga Wagga. It's about 5 hours south, south west of Sydney. Inland about 250 – 300 kms. Small world:)
cb25
I have no conversation in science other than the validity of the language it is ensconced within. I have no doubt that God's creation can exhibit a life-death cycle that can be extrapolated to a ring-year methodology, but if you are not looking for annular rings to establish a preconcieved notion, it is really just wood grain which makes the bitterest of distilled spirits.
BTW: if you are speaking of the phenomena: White Cliffs, etc. you may see your observations as objective. Yet you, yourself, are subject to those same pressures that created them, generally unconsciously. If you are in a position to evaluate them outside 'mortality', please pass along the capacity before you die.
kLutz…
do I take that as a "No"? If so there is no discussion or common ground to be had between us. I happen to think there is such a thing as common sense and logic and that to dismiss all reasoning based on such as subjective, just because I happen to live in the world I am discussing, and therefore obvisously invalid, (to you) is to excuse oneself from viable discussion. Your choice.
Cheers
cb25
I can't imagine asking a question where I cannot entertain all answers, I guess thats because making up my mind is frought with the persuasions of men while my heart remains enthroned on the Mercy Seat. Accomodating a manmade diorama is the least of my concerns, especially when it discounts the God-given value of the individual. Go … have your fun.
-kenn
kLutz,
Sorry….I think I have totally missed your points or something, as your last comment leaves me confused as to whether I did or did not understand what you were saying in the first place.
Perhaps if you had answered my question earlier with a simple Yes or No, I would have avoided my confusion.
"Go…have …fun". No. That is not my point. My point is that IF there is no common ground on what can comprise reasonable discussion and evidence then, and only then, is there no point discussing. If there is common ground – great.
If I can be a little (insert your own word) …what on earth is a "manmade diorama" in the context of this discussion. Are you suggesting the list of things I asked Darrel to explain are a manmade diorama? Are you calling evolution a man made diorama?
Seriously…. the assertion that there IS a God-given value of an individual IS Accomodating a manmade diorama. Demonstrate that assertion a posteriori. Does it not come from the diorama of Sacred writings? eg the Bible? Such beliefs are far more dependent on what I suspect you are meaning by "manmade diorama"s than are the hard rock realities I asked Darrel to explain. Likewise the hard rock evidences that support the theory of an evolutionary process.
Are they not?
Yes I agree with you cb25 about the white cliffs of Dover
and the other. There is no conflict. May I call you Chris?
Darrel,
Chris is fine.
Cheers
Kenn, Darrel, Chris, G'Day.
The point of trying to be objective (in science) is to create common ground. It is a way of being able to make phenomena mutually observable and enabling replicable measures.
While it is true that subjectivity often creeps in, even where it is not wanted, and that may be inevitable to some degree, we can successfully limit the impact of subjectivity through methods such as testing interobserver reliability and research design and agreeing in advance on definitions.
And we should also make use of–and even celebrate–our subjective, inuitive, and creative capacities. We just need to try to discern between our subjective and objective inclinations and not claim we are using one when we are using the other or a mixture of the two.
We can all appreciate the white cliffs of Dover on many levels…. Just the thought of them brings a flood of very personal memories. Warm wishes to all.
Joe
In reading over the comments on this thread, one theme pops out: there is no common theme. We all make comments which are right in our own eyes (I think I’m quoting something here, but can’t recall from where).
We have comments ranging from the totally and radically evangelical to the agnostic. Some would say that is not good. We should be all saying the same thing and believing the same thing, otherwise known as “The Truth.”
That is a party line which all fundamentalist and conservative churches would like to its members to believe is the case. That is a Myth–totally out of touch with reality. Any religion—and Adventism is no exception (and perhaps is even a case study) is a messy collection of reasonable, inspiring and odd (read: sometimes crazy) ideas—all mixed together in a potpourri. Trying to figure out which ones are reasonable and which ones are crazy is the real problem.
To All
The discussion about subjectivity and objectivity is no joke. When I was growing up in England we had a society called the Flat Earth Society. It kind of went out of favor but rercently has come back into vogue and boasts some 3,000 members. See it at http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms. They are still convinced that the world is flat despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary. The challenge for Erv, ChB, Joe, Darrel, Emily, myself and others is that we all come with certain views already as part of our frame of reference. Resetting that frame of evidence is what is so difficult. I spoke at the Redwoods Camp Meeting one year. I had three ladies meet with me to correct some of my theology. One of them was pregnant. She told me, and the others agreed, that if her baby had godly enough members, that baby could grow up to never sin. And she was perfectly sincere. That was the logical result of her frame of reference that before we go through the close of probation we must become sinless. So if we can be sinless at some time in our lives why not from the beginning?
The challenge is how to agree on the facts that seem so plain. And our frame of reference is often the sticking point.
Weeding is easy today – the Ground is very forgiving.
David Newman,
Long time no catch up. Your point was open to all, so if I may ask you just one set of questions re the following point?
"we all come with certain views already as part of our frame of reference. Resetting that frame of evidence is what is so difficult."
I began life as a conservative, postlapserian, EGW believing, SDA. I have a BA in theology, have preached many a sermon in strong support of every SDA doctrine. I have literally virtually been a cb in the early days. (Aussie term for Concerned Brethren)
It is no secret where I am in relation to traditional SDA docrtine now. Right down to creation.
I, (and there are many others) am proof that people can and do change their "frame of evidence". (I would probably use different terms for it, but that will do)
Now, tell me:
1. Is it a good or a bad thing that I have changed my frame of evidence?
2. What "checks" would you suggest I undertake to ensure my changes have been in the right direction. ie that I have not been deceived, fooled or otherwise stupid?
3. How would you have guided those three women to alter their frame of reference?
4. Does someone who becomes an SDA change their frame of evidence? If so, what is the "key" ingredient in their attitude, experience, thinking etc that makes this possible?
Appreciate your comment on these four points
Cheers
Why the urgent need to choose about the origin of life? What anyone believes changes absolutely nothing. If some believe in a flat earth (it's biblical), it is only one of many subjective views; if one believes the earth and everything in it was created in six days, does it change a single fact? It may be very important to some people, but again, what is cannot be affected by our beliefs.
Why should someone make a decision on which little or nothing can be absolutely verified? What is read in the Bible and what is observed in nature have various interpretations depending on whether subjective or objective findings have meaning. I prefer to withhold absolute statements as anything said today could be erroneous tomorrow as change is a part of life–nothing stays the same.
Like cb 25, I was a"good" SDA for most of my life; going through all the right and proper motions but without truly understanding the doctrines either to accept or deny. If one is averse to the possibility of change, be aware that study and research is dangerous to any frame of reference, and especially when studying in a non-SDA university where one will be exposed to a wide array of subjects with no boundaries inhibiting open discussion.
One must have very deep-seated opinions or beliefs to ignore all the contrary evidence for maintaining faith in the Adventist story (yes, story is correct; just as the Mormon tale of its origin is also a story they wove). That story cannot be divided, it must be accepted or rejected in its entirety. It demands more of integrity than can be mustered to cling to it as "Truth|" and when any one pillar falls, the whole tower of dominoes falls. It doesn't happen in a day, month, or year, but when it eventually comes crashing down all around, there is only one choice: either continue the charade and stay in the comfortable cocoon or stand alone and no longer be fearful of leaving the one religious community that had been home for so long.
When logic and reason must be divorced to maintain a belief that is far too high a price to pay. I respect what others believe; whether Mormons, Muslims, Roman Catholics or Adventists. But confusing belief with evidence cheapens both. What would be your attitude if a Mormon missionary tried to convince you that Joseph Smith had visions revealing the early settlers of America were Jews and they lived here in the early first centuries? Just as there would be no Mormons without this story, so there would be no Adventists without the story of the visions of Ellen White, which, of course, Adventists believe equally as true.
You all are so right. The task of heightening our awareness of the subjective a priori, is extremely important. What am I not seeing and why? If this idea is true, how does that make me feel and why? What meaning have I placed on an idea and why?
To help me keep my subjective in check (not to say emotional meaning is void of truth; it is not) it is helpful to find those who are actually opposed to my interpretations, to test and see if they are at least seeing the same facts as I am.
A few years ago around 2009, just before the bicentennial of Darwin’s birth, an article in Nature discussed the work of 16 scientists who were preparing something for the bicentennial and realized they all did not see the evidence for evolution. These scientists did not have Intelligent Design sympathies. None!
They were however profoundly dissatisfied that evolution could explain the “horrendous complexity” in living systems. They met together in Altenburg Austria, in the summer of 2008 to find a new path and stated that they where extremely skeptical of the creative power of the mutation/selection mechanism.
This group, dubbed the “Altenburg 16” by science writer Susan Mazur, made it clear that Darwin’s highly touted mechanism failed to explain the emergence of new organic structures and body plans. The radical views and goals of the Altenburg 16 meeting, and of the book affiliated with their efforts, were made clear in the journal Nature. Amazingly, said one scientist in Nature, neo-Darwinism has told us nothing about the emergence of new body structures such as eyes and wings. John Whitfield, “Biological theory: Postmodern evolution?” Nature 455 (sept. 11 2008) 281-84 on-line at Nature News, Sept. 17, 2008, and Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. Muller Evolution—the Extended Synthesis (MIT 2010)
Of course one can find many scientists who feel neo-Darwinism is very capable to do this and even think they have evidence of it. I am not familiar with the flat earth people, but I am guessing that there is some important meaning they see in the idea, or they are very much not educated. Whatever, we do know the facts on this one.
In my view, we know the facts on the power of evolution to actually create. Notice I used the word: create. I am very much aware of the meaning for me that is attached to the view of Divine Creation. This world view does effect my thinking. So I must check if others from a very different world view at least see the same facts as I do. Interpretation might be subjective, facts never are. I suspect the same is true for strong evolutionists. There must be something driving them to want it to be true,( Darwin Himself said this about Christianity, and I can’t blame him. Discussing predestination and eternal torment, Darwin said, “why would anyone want Christianity to be true.”.,) Many scientists, some for very good reasons, want evolution to be true, but are frustrated that the evidence is not there.
Noam Lahav, a leading researcher in this field, explains this scientific crisis in vivid wording. Lahav clearly points to the need of a “new paradigm,” to replace evolution. As an Atheist researcher, he has no religious motive for doubting the existence of a naturalistic explanation, but is frustrated that the facts are not there. At the end of his book lenth treatment of this he says: “Having made a long and tortuous journey in search of the origin of life, some readers may feel disappointed: The alarming number of speculations, models, theories, and controversies regarding every aspect of the origin of life semm to indicate that this scientific discipline is almost in a hopeless situation.” Biogenesis: Theories of Life’s Origin (Oxford Press 1999) pg 302
The answer for objectivity for me is to ask Hard Questions, Listen To Others Carefully, Read Widely and Pray For Wisdom.
As I have indicated here several times, I do not consider myself a "Darwinist," because I am not a disciple of Darwin, and because Darwin would not recognize modern biology as his creation. After all, he really did not know much of anything about even Mendelian inheritance, certainly nothing about population biology or molecular biology, or the "Modern Synthesis" (Fisher, 1930, along with Mayr and Dobzhansky). Genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, etc., and what I have been pressing for, more complete phenomic characterization, are revolutionizing biology. To my mind, the "Extended Synthesis" efforts (of Pigliucci and others) are very welcome. In a sense they are overdue–but in another sense, new empirical evidence is emerging so rapidly now that there is a need to be open and flexible–maybe we could call it a need for "scientific agility."
So, I think it is really important to go to the original sources and read them, rather than reading what journalists or detractors (or, what I have called "spin doctors") claim is being said. One easy source to get in full text on line is "An Extended Synthesis for Evolutionary Biology" by Massimo Pigliucci. This was published in The Year in Evolutionary Biology 2009 which is volume 1168 of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. You can just google it. There is also a 2010 volume and a 2011 volume in preparation.
My motivation, through the use of science, is to gain and evaluate knowledge and ideas and increasingly approach what is actually true. I have no interest at all in confirming anything that Darwin ever suggested. I am aware that some scientists and philosophers are deeply invested in defending Darwin from detractors. There is a bit of hero worship that I think can distort peoples' reasoning, and that happens a lot with contemporary celebrity scientists also. People are just people, scientists included.
Elaine, you might want to re-think this statement:"I prefer to withhold absolute statements" Elaine, I am just teasing you. You make very excellent points. Do you feel that if somehow creation (Not Gen. 1or 2, just plain creation) were logically and scientifically proved, then do you feel the burden of Adventism would be placed back on you?
What "plain creation" are you referring to other than the one in Genesis? Which of many creation stories could "logically and scientifically" be proved? All the different theories? All "scientific proofs" are provisional and subject to be revised or changed with newer discoveries; it is never static, which I cannot make absolute statements about something that is so transitory.
Adventism was a burden 😉 and I can't imagine voluntarily accepting that burden again. Does Adventism have ownership of Creation?
Tennyson captures our dilemma in his poem ‘The Ancient Sage’ "For nothing worth proving can be proven, nor yet disproven: wherefore thou be wise, cleave ever to the sunnier side of doubt."
cb25
Chris, great to talk to you again. You ask the most challenging questions. Here is what I can say at this moment in time. And like you I have changed a lot in my beliefs and understadnings although most of them along different lines than yours.
"1. Is it a good or a bad thing that I have changed my frame of evidence?"
Not at all. I may not agree with your current frame of reference but if we never change then we will never grow. The key point of becoming a Christian is changing one's frame of reference, is one example.
2. What "checks" would you suggest I undertake to ensure my changes have been in the right direction. ie that I have not been deceived, fooled or otherwise stupid?
A very good question. For me as a Christian it has to center around the cross. Do the changes I make help me understand God better, Jesus better, what He did for me for my salvation? And this is where faith comes in but faith is the strong suit of the scientist too. A second criterion is do I feel that I am being led by the Spirit of God. We are both emotional and rational creatures. Are they both in balance?
3. How would you have guided those three women to alter their frame of reference?
I don't understamd who these three women are.
4. Does someone who becomes an SDA change their frame of evidence? If so, what is the "key" ingredient in their attitude, experience, thinking etc that makes this possible?
Yes, all SDAs need to be changing their frame of reference. this is what growth is all about. Again I come from a Christian theologian point of view. At one time part of my frame of reference was sinless perfection. When I came to understand the gospel I discovered that the two could not travel together. I had to give up sinless perfection. Frames of reference must always be looked at to see if they are too rigid or not strong enough. Everyone has a frame of reference whether deliberately chosen or subsconscious. That is how we decide what to let through our filters. Everyone of us has filters that is why we have difficulty agreeing.
But I come back to my main point. Since I believe there is a future life I want to know how to become part of that future life and therefore the cross is my touchstone. What brings me closer is good. What drives me away is not good.
Hi David N,
The 3 women were my description of the three ladies at the Redwood camp.
If I get you right:
1. Change is good.
2. I think I hear you, but these checks do seem more like "making sure I don't move out of my frame of reference. I'm more interested in comparing my frame of reference and testing its validity against another. In this case one I have left:)
..4. Ensure my frame of reference is not too rigid or loose. I guess that means bringing them into conscious awareness as much as possible for honest examination.
Thanks for the view.. I'll mull it over some more
Cheers
cb25
A great example of a radical change in frame of reference is Antony Flew. the title of his book is "There Is A God. How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind." Here is a man who spent most of his life arguing against God but then came to argue for a God. His book is a fascinating read.
Yes, Chris, I have argued with you and others on various blogs at AT about creation in six days being the only view form a theological point of view. These exchanges have helped me not be so dogmatic. I have simplified things down to what Paul said in his letter to the church in Corinth. "I have determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified." This will be the theme of my last sermon (June 30) as sernior pastor of New Hope, when I retire. Yet, at the same time he spent the rest of his book writing about everything than Jesus Crucified. There were some real issues he had to deal with in that church. So I will be preaching on my favorite topic: tensions in life, whether in the Bible or with science or with life in general. For me now everything must be measured by eternity and like Mr Flew I am always willing to rexamine my frame of reference.
Thank Elaine, my very point was to say that
Adventism does not!
David N,
I've taken the time to do a read up on Flew. Perhaps it is my perception, but the way you refer to him becoming a defender of God, I got the impression he had become a Theist in a fairly full, Biblical sense.
It seems to me this is completely wrong. He is at best a somewhat Deistic Theist. He does not believe in a God who exhibits any form of intervention. He does not believe in an afterlife. In fact, he hopes there is not one!
I have to say. I am deeply suprised that you would use this as an example of "change" in this context. His position is not disimilar to mine, yet you hold him up as an example.
I would say he is an example, but a profound example of the more "middle ground" so difficult to inhabit, where one denies the absurdities of fundamental and biblical literalism, YEC etc on the one hand, and on the other hand denies the rabid ramblings of the evangelistic atheist.
I did not intend to enter into extended discussion with one another again, as we have trod some meandering paths in the past:), but I find it at the least puzzling, and perhaps even frustrating, that you would quote someone as an example of a shift in frame of reference or evidence to support "your" cause, when in fact if the guy has moved as a result of the integrity you seem to be applauding, he has in fact moved to a position which is still opposed to yours or any other SDA one. (needless to say, his position gives credibility to mine and some others who post here)
I don't quite get it:)
Cheers
Cb25
It all depends how you define fundamental change. it seems to me that the most prominent philosopher of the 20th century who wrote some of the definite works on why there cannot be a God ("God and Philosophy," "The Presumption of Atheism," and "How to Think Straight") changing his mind from there being no divine omnipotent being to their being an devine being is a major change in one's frame of referene. But it is not for me to argue. Let me quote his own words from his own book on how and why he changed his mind about their being a God.
"I should point out, moreover, that this is not the first time I 'changed my mind' on a fundamental issue. Among other things, readers who are familiar with my vigorous defense of free markets may be surprised to learn that I was once a Marxist (for details, see the second chapter of this book). In addition, over two decardes ago I retracted my earlier view that all human choices are determined entirely by physical causes."
"Since this is a book about why I changed my mind about the existence of God, an obvious question would be what I believed before the 'change' and why. The first three chapters seek to answer this question, and the last seven chapters describe my discovery of the Divine." (pp. 2-3).
Cb25, it was not my intention to let Flew distract us. You are the one who tried to make Flew's change one of little significance. All I was trying to point out that there are examples of people (and I could quote many more) that were and are willing to change some of their fundamental views.
A more relevant example for you in Australia would be Robert Brimsmead. He started off with his frame of reference as sinless perfection (I was at La Sierra when he was in his heyday). Then he changed to an emphasis on reformation justification by faith (Present Truth Magazine), then he shifted again to antinomianism (Verdict magazine), and finally to agnosticism. Some time back Des Ford told me of his visit to Robert on his avocado farm in Queensland and how we still professed agnosticism. (also dont's let this example side track us from my main point below.)
So frames of reference can change.
However, all this is really beside the point. You have not addressed my fundamental point. How does what one believe draw one closer to Jesus or fruther away from Jesus? What does what I believe tell me about the cross and what Jesus did for me? If what you believe draws you closer to God who am I to challenge you (as Paul said, we all see through a glass darkly). But if what you believe causes you to doubt who God is and what He has done for us in Jesus then there is something not right with that belief.
Beside this issue the debate about evolution and creation is purely an intellectual exercise with which there will always be differences of opinion.
"the most prominent philosopher of the 20th century who wrote some of the definite works on why there cannot be a God ("God and Philosophy," "The Presumption of Atheism," and "How to Think Straight")
David, I assume you are referring to Flew? Yes, among a small group of those who become fans when someone prominent accepts belief in God, his name of often used. However, the claim that he is the "most prominent philosopher of the 20th century" is most subjective. A list of the "Great Philosophers of the 20th Century (Wikepedia) does not even list his name. No. 1 of the greatest and most influential of that century is Wittgenstein, followed by Heidigger, and Bertrand Russell, Rawls and Sartre are some of the most read.
Other recent well-known published authors or Andrew Sullivan and Jon Meacham who contribute to current trends in the religious world.
Changing one's mind can reflect a desire to read and understand the entire religious world, not a very narrow aspect of one's own religious community, as no one is an island and we cannot live apart from the world and we all are affected by events beyond our religious borders.
The beliefs about creation should not affect one's Christian life as the command to love one another transcends doctrine.
D
David,
You state: "You (I) are the one who tried to make Flew's change one of little significance."
When? Where?
Further: "You have not addressed my fundamental point. How does what one believe draw one closer to Jesus or fruther away from Jesus? What does what I believe tell me about the cross and what Jesus did for me? "
I had no idea you were expecting me to "address" this point!
I actually ignored that point in my summary of what I heard you saying because I did not want to get sidetracked into pointing out the obvious about it:
It was a classic example of someone holding up their world view as a proven fact when it is in reality an apriori assumption that there is a God and even a dark glass to see through! To make Jesus the "test" of one's "direction" in belief is to take all that framework as a given. Is it? Demonstrate that a posteriori!
If you are really open to follow the evidence, then do so with integrity and humility. That is why I am where I am as I do that as best I can. Will I change? Yes. I will follow as best I can the evidence.
Finally. Flew made it clear: He followed the evidence where it led. He did not become a theist in any form or manner close to the Biblical or Christian framework. Obviously the evidence for him did NOT lead there.
cn25
In England we talk about walking around Robin Hood's Barn when we are not getting anywhere. This seems to be the case between you and me. Yes, Flew is not where I am when it comes to a personal God. You make a big deal of following the evidence. Flew said that he followed the evidence that led him to conclude that there was something rather than nothing behind this universe. However
Richard Dawkins "following" the same evidence concludes that there is no being behind the universe. so evidence is not enough. No amount of evidence will convince someone who does not want to believe. The human mind has an infinite capacity to rationalization.
And we have been around this before. Your frame of reference is built on unproven assumptions just as mine are. So the big question I have is how do we decide whose assumptions make the most sense? I have no answer to that. Bart Ehrman goes from being an evangelical Christian, graduate of Wheaton College, Phd in New Testament from Princeton to become an agnostic (writer of books on the Bible). He followed the evidence. Flew ceased being an atheist and even an agnostic to believing there is a divine someone there. Both had the same evidence. You and I have the same evidence.
My answer (which will not please some) is that I know there is a God because of personal experiece which gives me faith that there was a Jesus, who died on a cross for my sins, and one day He is going to make all thing new. Can I prove this? No. Do I believe this is true? Yes. So please don't keep talking about following the evidence and only one conclusion will result. No the same evidence will bring different conclusions depending where we start from and where we ultimately start from is by faith whether agnostic or not.
Jesus explained very graphically how we have infinite capacities to "prove" our viewpoint regardless. He tells the story of the beggar man and the rich man. The rich man ends up in hell and the poor man at Abraam's bosom. The rich man begs Abraham to warn his brothers. Abraham says they have the Scriptures. The rich man says that is not enough. Please send someone from the dead. They would surely believe such a person. But Abraham replies that if they will not believe the Scriptures they will not believe if someone comes from the dead, If they don't want to believe nothing can make them believe.
Cb25. My evidence is God working in my life. My evidence is the changed lives I see in my parishoners because of their belief in God. to me that evidence is far more powerful than any evidence from the physical world. My evidence is what a true belief in the cross does for people. that is why I kinow there is a God who cares because I see the evidence of that caring. And as long as you are drawing nearer to Jesus it is not important that you and I agree on everything else. We can differ and still love each other in Jesus.
David's comment that "My evidence [for God's existence] is God working in my life . . . and changed lives I see in my parishoners . . ." Such evidence is, of course, not public evidence, but subjective evidence of relevance only to the person having a given experience. Subjective evidence is neither "true" or "false." It simply is. I am glad that David does not appeal to his subjective understandings to "prove" anything from his theology or his understanding of the history of the world.
David,
I have no problem with you believing in God because of your experience. So to do I.
But, please do not state: "Your frame of reference is built on unproven assumptions just as mine are."
I can show you a posteriori what and why my frame of reference is.
I have been deliverately absent AT for some time. I came back because Emily asked what were at least on face value some genuine questions. I put a comment in. Darrel, I think it was, picked up a point or so that I had made. We meandered through unresolved turf. He never did answer my points about the Cliffs list etc being concrete evidence for an old earth and old life. You have failed to answer my points in an a posteriori manner.
My next absence will be longer.
You and I can believe all we want in personal experience. It is a proof on the personal level. We can see all we want the changes in lives. Great.
But never let us allow that to make us defend a form of Christianity which teaches people to deny reality and believe in a special creation some 6 k ago, a global flood some 4 k ago, and so on.
That does matter because it makes Christianity look folish to the informed.
cb25
Yes, I can understand your frustration with me. Let me make one more attempt to show that your beliefs about evolution is not based on strict science but on your faith in your assumptions. Here is a statement from wikipedia on the definition of uniformitarianism.
The two methodological assumptions are universally acclaimed by scientists, and embraced by all geologists. Gould further states that these philosophical propositions must be assumed before you can proceed as a scientist doing science. "You cannot go to a rocky outcrop and observe either the constancy of nature's laws or the working of unknown processes. It works the other way around." You first assume these propositions and "then you go to the out crop of rock."[17]
If a person challenges that assumption (which I do) then you can no longer be consistent in proving your point of view. It is an assumption taken by faith because scientitsts want something objective to measure the past by. But I take the position that when sin entered our solar system it changed some of our fundamental laws. So we both come to the subject with assumptions. That is why I wrote what I did earlier. Please do not say again that you come to this discussion with no assumptions, that all your presuppositions are proven and scientific. That is why you and I are having this difficulty because you don't want to accept my assumptions but want me to accept your assumptions both of which ultimately are decided by faith not by proven evidence.
"But I take the position that when sin entered our solar system it changed some of our fundamental laws. So we both come to the subject with assumptions."
Beginning with a priori acceptance of supernatural, unprovable assumptions must be mutually accepted by all participants in order to progress otherwise why engage in futile words?
This is why it is impossible to converse on a subject when anything will be discarded that does not fit that a priori position. Opposing premises defeat the purpose of rationally discussing any particular subject.
Is it possible to rationally discuss the subject of ghosts if one declares there are no such things as ghosts? The supernatural cannot be rationally discussed unless two believers in the supernatural wish to engage in such a discussion–but to what end?
cb25 by the way your write,
But never let us allow that to make us defend a form of Christianity which teaches people to deny reality and believe in a special creation some 6 k ago, a global flood some 4 k ago, and so on.
Your argument is a straw man. I never said I deny reality. You are making that up. I accept reality. But I deny your interpretation of reality. All reality has to be interpreted. One last example. I attended a mental health seminar at Harding Hospital in Worthington, Oh. Dr. Harding told us of a patient who was brought in saying she was dying because she had lost all her blood. Her relatives begged Dr. Harding to draw some blood to show that she still had blood in her body. Dr. Harding said that would not do any good but to please them he finally drew some blood. As he did so the woman yelled "See I told you so. That I am dying from lack of blood. You see the last drops of blood leaving my body."
There was the same reality but two different interpretations of that reality. That is the challenge you and I face because we have never been able to agree on the hermeneutics of interpreting reality.
I think many highly qualified and productive scientists would disagree about the quotation attributed to Stephen Jay Gould. I'm not sure of the context; however, philosophical assumptions are not the first step of the scientific method. Observation (including description and or measurement) of a phenomenon is the first step. That can be done without having any hypothesis or assumptions. In fact, some scientists (notably in my own experience, Professor Thelma Rowell, trained at Cambridge and a professor of zoology for many years at Cal Berkeley) stress the importance of going into the field without hypotheses or assumptions to ensure that you do not bias your experience by having already decided what you are going to see.
At the same time, if one wishes to observe a living species or a fossil, one does need to go where they are, not simply choose at random. That may be the sense in which he means what is quoted. BUT, if one just stumbles onto something, one need not have made any assumptions about where or what it is, to be able to collect, photograph, measure, and/or provide the specimen to a museum for analysis.
So, if I go to observe wild primates, I might choose the location and wish to survey and identify the primates, if any, that live there. If I don't find any, it does not proove that there are none–just that I did not find any. If I do find some, I can photograph and describe them. I can count them and estimate population size and density, I can record their vocalizations. I can empirically determine/estimate their range. With longer term studies I can document longevity, morbidity, and mortality. I can obtain physical specimens if they die or are killed by people or predators. I can collect scats and even do endocrine measures, and sometimes get DNA from them. I can do many things objectively without assuming anything about their origins. When it comes to figuring out what my data/observations mean, I need to evaluate the evidence in the context of other relevant information–including, what other people think data of this kind means.
There are some scientists who feel differently about this process. I'm not so comfortable with the way they "do" science. Not that there is anything wrong with hypothesis-driven science, since people have to make decisions about which work or questions deserve higher priority or funding. But proposing a hypothesis and finding results that are "consistent with the hypothesis" is not the same as real hypothesis testing involving setting up a "null hypothesis" and rejecting it if the results support such a decision. The failure to falsify a null hypothesis does not mean you have proven and can accept the alternative.
Anyway, my point is that in science the design of research, whether controlled experiments or epidemiological surveys, is a process that enhances objectivity, promotes refinement, and enables replication, and/or comparisons across many different conditions. Suggesting that this process is no different than voluntarily placing faith in subjective experience or believing the anecdotal reports of others (recently or across hundreds or thousands of years) is not either fair or accurate.
A common technique, these days, is to point to some instance in which scientists disagree with each others' methods or conclusions, and use that as a basis for saying that demonstrates that all science is a "crock." And, of course, that science is no more reliable than faith in the unseen and unmeasurable. This kind of conclusion of "equivalence" is simply unreasonable and invalid.
Chris, you have my contact information. Please keep in touch to whatever extent you wish. Others (friends and colleagues I met here) are considering doing a project that might interest you–and we'd enjoy having you involved too. I'd also like to hear from Erv and John. And anyone else, of course.
Joe, I appreciate your comment. You write however, "philosophical assumptions are not the first step of the scientific method. Observation (including description and or measurement) of a phenomenon is the first step."
Are you saying that the concept that the laws we see today are the key to understanding the past and have never changed? So when a person observes nature isn't that person already coming from a set of assumptions on which to understand nature? I cannot observe unless I have first decided how to observe. Do we really come with a blank slate?
Our law courts are one of the best examples of how realty has to be interpreted. the same evidence is presented, the same facts, but the juror now has to decide whose interpretation of that evidence is correct: the prosecution or the defense. Doesn't all reality work that way? The fact that a majority of scientists interpret the evidence in favor of evolution does not necessarily prove that the minority of scientists are wrong in how they interpret the evidence in a different way. Otherwise we have science by majority rather than science by evidence.
No, I am saying that you can observe and describe something that exists now without assuming anything whatsoever about what has happened in nature throughout the period during which that specimen has existed.
You can, of course, attempt to find tangible objective evidence of what else has happened across that period of time. Change and variation is inevitable. Assumption of something being a "constant" is just a generalization when we do not know how change has occurred (or when we have evidence of a trend). Things get all confused by the use of terms such as "constant" or "random" when these are just being used as part of a mathematical model or quasi model, and they are being interpreted in some other way.
Of course, you are correct that "science by majority" rather than by the strength of fundamental evidence would be absurd. Arguments over what the evidence means, however, can range from completely wrong to completely right, and there are more ways to be incorrect than to be correct.
Joe,
Thanks for your sensible outline of methodology and invitation to keep in touch. I will do.
David,
I obviously agree with Joe's points. Let me also lay this out from a non science view regarding uniformitarianism and reality.
I did not claim you said you deny reality. I am making a statement that you do. As I explain my view on uniformitarianism it may come clear why.
Granted: I cannot go to a rocky outcrop and observe either the constancy of nature's laws or the working of unknown processes. However I can come to a series of geological hard facts and observe them. (like Joe has said)
Take the list of things I asked Darrel about. (for space I won't repeat them)
Now I will make the assumption🙂 that you understand them, know their physical shapes, layers, densities, composition, content, scope, and so on. All things that are measurable, observable realities which require relatively NO assumptions to observe in this manner.
Now: let's try to interpret that data we have noted, to answer the question what it says about how long this world may have been around.
As a first step I am going to make the assumption that gravity, summer and winter, erosion and deposition and the like have NOT changed. Based on this I get a resounding answer: The earth is incredibly old.
As a second step, let's make another assumption. That gravity, summer and winter etc etc HAS changed. Of course the first question I must ask to a posteriori test that assumption is does any of the hard data suggest this may have been the case? Answer: NO. So, wrong assumption.
Now, let's bring in the Bible. Let's overlay its claims about age of earth, creation, flood etc on these realities. At this point we are not giving the Bible any particular authority on the matter, just allowing it to make comment. Does it fit the observable data about the age of earth etc in ANY way? NO. No problem. Leave it aside.
Now, let's bring back the Bible, but this time we grant it final authority. Problem. It does not fit. OK, no problem, put aside the data. Explain it away with nonsense about not being able to "prove" that nothing has changed. That summer and winter, gravity, erosion, deposition, evaporation, etc etc have somehow, magically, or miraculously changed.
No. I have come to believe that if it were not for the a priori "need" or "decision" to grant the Bible the authority and then make everything conform to it – nobody in their wildest dreams would conjur up some of the explanations needed to dismis the most logical and common sense interpretation of the things I have listed to Darrel.
In that sense I see you and YEC's denying reality.
Do I make assumptions? Yes. But my assumptions can be tested a posteriori. Yours cannot.
cn25
You write
Do I make assumptions? Yes. But my assumptions can be tested a posteriori. Yours cannot.
Let's make sure we agree on the terms. As I understand it a posteriori knowledge is proven through experience. But how do you experience uniformitariansim? Your assumption can no more be tested than mine can. Saying it can be tested does not make it so.
It seems like in a previous thread that we should probably end our discussion here because you feel that I am not making sense and I feel that you are not making sense. So how do we have a meaningful conversation? That is quite a challenge. Again, to use a previous illustration. We are like two trains traveling on parallel tracks but never quite meeting. Let's agree that we don't agree and part as good friends.
David,
I probably should pick up on your point that you say I believe I come to this discussion with no assumptions. I pointed out that my assumptions were not unproven and that I could show you a posteriori what my frame of reference was. I did not say I had no assumptions.
Sure, nothing can be proven beyond doubt, but there are enough observable things in this world where one can gather a wide range of data from which to a posteriori produce compelling evidence as to the truth of an answer.
As noted earlier. The only reason there is any challenge to most of these "interpretations" of the data about the age of the earth and life is for one reason only. An a priori decision to grant the Bible the final call. That decision cannot be validated a posteriori. It seems to me it is and always will be a decision in spite of the evidence. However, show me some a posteriori evidence and I will be happy to change my views
I use a posteriori thus:
An a posteriori belief is one I have accepted because after careful examination of the most possible evidences it presents a compelling case based on the weight of that evidence and data.
How do I test or experience uniformitarianism?
Wow… the sun got up agian today. Why would it do that?
Sorry…just being silly
David…
It has been interesting to dialogue again. All the best, especially in your upcoming retirement.
If you get to OZ in any travels you do drop in for a cuppa.
Cheers
Let's all get along. We can be friends without agreeing on everything. But, we do need to be able to agree on some things. When I talk about objective evidence, I mean things that all of us can agree on without agreeing on what the evidence means. In my world, for example, this could be a set of human remains. We would be able to agree whether they were actual bones or fossil bones. We could get Erv and/or anyone else experienced in dating artifacts or have the artifacts assessed by agreed upon independent labs, or whatever. Up to a point the actual tangible evidence and data regarding it could be and remain objective.
Then at some point the actual tangible evidence and data could be explained/interpreted by a range of experts with various perspectives. When we get those interpretations, we simply recognize them for what they are. We can try to get the experts to list their assumptions and criteria. That is the place where a range of outcomes would be expressed. We can take all of them with a grain of salt, and/or we can attempt to evaluate the impact of the fundamental assumptions. Some may seem more sensible to me and some may seem more sensible to you, but we would not expect everything to just come out even.
We probably would expect that those who absolutely insisted that the age of the specimens could not exceed 6000 years would differ from those who have no such self-imposed limitation.
These conversations have been excellent examples for a course I am currently auditing: "Your Depective Mind: A Scientic Guid to Critical Thinking Skills."
One lesson learned from these discussions: Never discuss with someone who has invested heavily in a previously stated position.
Hi Cliff, for me, as I mentioned earlier, don’t
find a conflict with the evidences of an old earth.
“Chris,” I meant to type. Sorry Mate.
Hi Darrel,
I was puzzled about your comment re no conflict with the White cliffs etc. I must have missed your point somewhere as to how you really viewed the age of the earth?
Tell me, do you believe the earth and life upon it is vastly older than the 6000 years?
The point I was making in that list is that those things do strongly support the view that this world and life upon it are incredibly old.
For some reason I had assumed you believed the earth and life upon it was more in line with YLC or YEC.
I was innitially expressing a point about mutation and natural selection being a straw man because they are things that are sometimes difficult to "prove" either way. Because of this they perhaps should not be used to falsify a system.
My point was that we are far better (imo) to begin with "where we are". Things that can be objectively studied in the absence of assumptions, but which can form the basis for (for all intents and purposes) reliable interpretation.
Having said all that. There are incredible things in the scientific arena which add weight to the probability that an evolutionary process is the best expanation of how this world and life came to be what it is. I just like to begin where I am, with things that are concrete, on the macro level, and that I, as a non scientist, can get my head around.
Cheers
Chris
cb25
I was going to stop but i could not resist this almost last statement of yours. "How do I test or experience uniformitarianism?
Wow… the sun got up agian today. Why would it do that?
Sorry…just being silly.
Yes, you are. You answered a serious question with a flippant reply. Of course I can see it got up this morning. But how do you know it got up one million years ago? How do you know it was a 24 hour day back then? It is purely a belief based on an assumption that the physical laws have not changed. How do you prove they are constant? This is a serious question. If you cannot prove it then it seems to me you have a faith statement.
What are the mathematical odds that the sun will NOT rise in the morning?
What are the mathematical odds that if you drop a ball today it will not fall?
What are the mathematical odds that the sun will not shine at all tomorrow?
These odds are the same that the physical laws in the far distant past were different than today. What are those odds? If one believes God is the creator would He also have different laws at some time in the past than today?
For those who question whether these physical laws have changed, they never live as if they were. Frivilous questions result in flippant answers; suggesting the earth's rotation and gravity are only assumptions; such assumptions provide order in our lives that comprise our reality.
today?
Be careful, Elaine. You're beginning to make arguments that give credence to I.D. theory, with all that talk about statistical probability.
Assuming that the physical laws governing the universe have never changed is necessary to provide "order in our lives that comprise reality."??? Surely you jest! A billion Christians have no problem believing that sin has changed the laws of nature, and it is precisely that reality, and consciousness of the transcendent God, which gives a sense of order and meaning to their lives.
Besides, living inconsistently with professed beliefs has never been a problem for humanity. Why…liberals profess not to believe in human freedom. But they get up each morning, go through the day, and revel in rendering moral judgments as if they believe very much in freedom.
Thanks Chris, yes, I understand where you are
coming from in most respects I think. As Darwin
said we should explain effects by causes that we see
In opporation Today. Back to my Mind thing,
it has never been observed that natural forces
or random processes to produce Information.
Only Mind produces Information, without exception
in our experience and observation. As an intelligent
Observer I am not going to infer a process on the
past that is unobservable and completely
experimentally a failure. I can not logically change
adding more and more time to it to make it
more plausible as a thought experiement.
I can not, must not therefore assume that because
life has changed over time it naturally follows that
the needed information (complex digital code)
has been added by mutation and selection.
No, information comes from a Mind, always.
Vast stretches of time do not deminish this fact.
The idea that mutation and selection create new
Information and explains development is an unfounded
premise. An excellent book dealing with this very
subject is. ‘What Darwin Got Wrong’ Two atheists
Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini.
I know Brother Joe you are not a Darwinist,
I don’t mean to so, but topic of this book is really
about the complete failure of Mutation and selection
and the “New Synthisis.”. Now why would these two
Scholars attack the very foundation of modern biology
when they have no predisposition toward Theism?
As Joe says, the knowledge in these fields
is growing so fast I believe more and more scientists
are going to challenge naturalism as a theory.
Thanks Chris, yes, I understand where you are
coming from in most respects I think. As Darwin
said we should explain effects by causes that we see
In opporation Today. Back to my Mind thing,
it has never been observed that natural forces
or random processes to produce Information.
Only Mind produces Information, without exception
in our experience and observation. As an intelligent
Observer I am not going to infer a process on the
past that is unobservable and completely
experimentally a failure. I can not logically change
adding more and more time to it to make it
more plausible as a thought experiement.
I can not, must not therefore assume that because
life has changed over time it naturally follows that
the needed information (complex digital code)
has been added by mutation and selection.
No, information comes from a Mind, always.
Vast stretches of time do not deminish this fact.
The idea that mutation and selection create new
Information and explains development is an unfounded
premise. An excellent book dealing with this very
subject is. ‘What Darwin Got Wrong’ Two atheists
Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini.
I know Brother Joe you are not a Darwinist,
I don’t mean to so, but topic of this book is really
about the complete failure of Mutation and selection
and the “New Synthisis.”. Now why would these two
Scholars attack the very foundation of modern biology
when they have no predisposition toward Theism?
As Joe says, the knowledge in these fields
is growing so fast I believe more and more scientists
are going to challenge naturalism as a theory.
I think it is important that I have not suggested that "more and more scientists are going to challenge naturalism as a theory." That is far, far from true.
What is happening as the pace of scientific discovery accelerates, especially in the genomic sciences, more and more is being discovered that illuminates and expands knowledge on issues about which people could only hypothesize, without having direct evidence to support or deny their ideas and explanations.
All this remains within the natural, tangible, physical domain. Most of these efforts (e.g., "extended synthesis," "evolutionary developmental biology," etc.) are really just ways of trying to put the new information together in more meaningful, more understandable, ways. They point out, correctly, that there are additional ways, besides the "mutation" notion (as it was understood and explained across many years) that introduce genotypic and phenotypic variation, and they point to additional processes besides natural selection as it was conceived of initially, as well as some of the functional interpretations of NS.
There has been debate about the ways in which selection occurs at the individual or group levels. I have long suggested that the potential for selection exists at every functional level of organization. Whether it has intergenerational consequences or not mostly depends on whether change has occurred in the germ cell line, although some potential for epigenetic effects to persist across generations has been known for at least 50 years. There has been a kind of dogma that has built up in and around evolutionary biology. Some scientists are now rejecting the unfounded aspects of dogma on the basis of new evidence that refines understanding.
However, there are a number of people who are grabbing every shred of information they can find to say "See? Those infernal evolutionists cannot even agree among themselves. This one says that one is wrong. And that one says this one is wrong. It must all be a bunch of hooey! So that proves we're correct that everything is supernatural." Then there are those who do not read the original scientific literature or the articles scientists write about as they seek a "new synthesis," and instead, they read only those who "spin" what is said about science and scientists, often in the most ridiculous and self-serving way possible.
The real, physical, beautiful, tangible, wonderous, natural world is out here for all to see. It holds enough mystery and challenge to keep us all busy and interested for the amount of time we have to be here. I feel sad for those who choose to invent, believe in, defend, and spend all their time living in an utter fantasy world. At best it is a waste of time. At worst, it fosters a descent into the depths of mental illness.
Your assertions about "Mind" are very strange indeed. They sound like something uncritically parroted from some intelligent design guru. It just imaginary! You seem to be able to believe almost anything as long as it magically supports the views you feel you MUST hold and defend. I'm afraid your mind is creating its own information and its own world.
Farewell, my friends.
I am sorry. I hit the send before I could sign off
God bless you I have to go write a sermon 🙂
Hi Darrel,
Am I correct: The bottom line of what you are arguing for above is essentially Intelligent Design as the better explanation for change and mutation?
As I noted in response to Nate in discussion under my blog (thanks Erv for putting up with us here when we get so off topic) about Noah's flood. I do have sympathies for the ID arguments. I also have problems with it, but leave it at that.
Now, to try to make sense of this. I would appreciate a straight answer to your view on the age of the earth and life upon it. That would help.
In the meantime, I started my point to Emily about beginning where we are. eg what we see, can study, experience etc. Whether or not one believes in natural selection and mutation in the absence of Mind, or sees Mind as a causal factor: That does not matter in answering the question about how old the earth and life upon it are. Neither position excludes a "process" of evolution and what appears to be an ancient earth and life existence.
A young earth, and particularly a young life creation 6000 yrs or so ago is a different story. It does exclude the deep time which seems so apparent in the geologic data we can observe. That is my issue, and I do not see that your point about the "failure" of natural selection etc really answers that problem.
Hope this makes the distinction clearer
Chris
Hi David N,
This is in response to your point about the sun getting up this morning. (Thanks Elaine for your well made point). Let me try to appease the injury my seriously intended bit of fun did:)
Can I prove the 24 hour day etc 1 million years ago? No, but Elaine makes a great point.
However, just because I can't do so for a million years is a nonsense reason to deny that there is uniformity.
YEC/YLC put life and this earth at about 6000 years. Correct?
What do you know about Ice Cores? They are perhaps THE most reliable source of raw data to provide a picture into the more recent past. It is beyond reasonable doubt that for the last 30 to 60 Thousand years seasonal cycles have not changed.
I challenge you to research this form of data and come back to me with good reasons why this is not the case. Like I have said before. I'm happy to see new light.
Now, as for the creationist use and abuse of this non uniformity argument. I have just re read the AIG material on the White Cliffs. Take a look at the way they jump from one side of uniformity to the other when it suits them:
Speaking of the purity of the chalk:
"The purity of the chalk itself also points to rapid accumulation. One cannot imagine a scenario where deposits over millions of years could maintain such purity without accumulating some contaminating sediments from other events."
One cannot imagine it? Why? Oh, because things have to be uniform don't they…can't happen now so cannot be imagined to happen! Really? To be honest, I cannot imagine that the chalk could demonstrate the purity they do IF they were formed rapidly in the dying days of a chaotic global flood. That defies imagination. But, then, I guess I'm relying on uniformity!
Now in regard to the buried moluscs in the chalk:
"The only additional material in the chalk is fossils of macroscopic organisms such as ammonites and other molluscs, whose fossilisation also requires rapid burial because of their size.."
Do they? What based on uniformity? Not only is this a call on uniformity…it is a nonsense statement. Shells and the like are one thing that does NOT require rapid burial. In fact they usually sink into the floor bacause they are dead. It is not hard to imagine them sinking into the ooze.
Now, check this one out about the results of the passing of the flood. I've put bold on the key bit:
"However, we do have the results of its passing in the rock record to study, and it is clear that by working from what is known to occur today, even if rare and catastrophic by today’s standards, we can realistically calculate production of these chalk beds…'
To quote Hewitt, c'mon, give me a break! From what is known to occur today? Uniformity!!
To cut this short, the entire rest of the article depends on things NOT being unform for their argument to even had a semblance of sense.
David, I cannot prove to you the day was 24 long 1,000,000 years ago. But I sure as anything can tell you that 10, 20, 30,000, or even 60,000 years ago it WAS.
Yes, There has been climate change. (not man made), there has been changes. But for all intents and purposes I can examine those things in the list I gave, plus a multitude of other things and reach one conclusion. Only one.
This earth and life on it are from deep time. If the Bible denies this I will go with my senses and common sense. To quote Jack Hoehn's excellent point:
I will carefully "… think through and reject interpretations that remain doubtful, debatable, of some private interpretation, or contrary to sanctified human reason. No matter what the Devil may care."
Chris
cb25 said, "What do you know about Ice Cores? They are perhaps THE most reliable source of raw data to provide a picture into the more recent past. It is beyond reasonable doubt that for the last 30 to 60 Thousand years seasonal cycles have not changed. . . .
This earth and life on it are from deep time. If the Bible denies this I will go with my senses and common sense."
One has to assume that the layering in ice cores (or any other deposits for that matter), had to occur only once a year, or once a season, or whatever. That is an assumption that cannot be proven. Every snow storm leaves it's own defineable layer. There are more way to interpet this than to assume that each layer represents a year or a season.
As for me, I will go with God's word rather than may senses. Man's senses are notoriously inaccurate in their ability to decide truth and reality.
You skeptics are fulfilling prophecy without even realizing it.
When faced with reality, it is not at all uncommon for mankind to turn to magic.
Live and be well.
I see that discussing uniformitarianism in any depth seems to "fiighten" many of you. Maybe it is because if we do challenge that concept a lot of things could change. But let me switch points a litte. Grossmont College in California has a powerpoint presentation call The Assumptions of Science. In Four panels they listed the assumptions. Here are just a few of them.
The world is real.
The real world is knowable and comprehensible.
There are laws that govern the real world.
Those laws are knowable and comprehensible.
Those laws don't [radically] change according to place or time, since the early stages of the big bang.
Nature is understandable.
The rules of logic are valid.
Language is adequate to describe the natural realm
Human senses are reliable.
Mathematical rules are descriptive of the physical world.
However it was panel 5 that caught my attention.
Assumptions are accepted without proof.
They form the basis of all scientific thinking.
This is what I have been trying to say that whether we use the Bible or Science we first have to agree on our assumptions. And scientific assumptions are accepted by faith not by proof. And the way we come to those assumptions determines which ones we will accept. Thus the atheist will come to the subject with a different set of assumptions from what the Christian will have.
Which means we should be open to question the assumptions.
http://disciple21century.com/assumptions-of-science.htm
David,
That is drivel and you know it. Get honest with me and deal with what I said in my last post to you. Uniformitatrianim are just a great hook to hang denial of reality on. Just because it can neither be proven nor denied sufficiently to "prove" something does not weaken the reality we DO see. There is enough data to remove any credibility to the alternate nonsense of YEC etc.
Stick to the points. You tell me. Darrel tell me. What do the things in the list I gave tell us about how old the earth and life upon it are?
You guys just do not want to answer questions straight. Darrel, you are doing a sermon and may get back to my questions. One of which was, what do you believe about the age of earth and life.
I invite both of you to actually deal with the list I gave. Tell me how you can honestly fit those things into a YEC YLC.
When this discussion has come to a half dignified end I too will farewell AT.
Well stated, David. My statements about unproveable assumptions in science are almost always ignored. But, whether Dr. Taylor, or cb25 want to admit it or not, it is these unproveable assumtions that lie at the foundation of evolutionary science.
Bother Harace,
So…the unprovable assumptions that lie at the foundation of evolutionary science are sufficient to dismiss the conclusions of science. Right?
Ok, then how come the unprovable assumptions that lie at the foundation of your belief system (faith) are not sufficient to dismiss the conclusions you hold so dearly?
Of course, I don't believe your statement anyway, but given that you do, why not follow your logic to its conclusion and throw out your "faith" too. After all it is built on "unprovable assumptions", is it not?
Of course I can't "prove" that the Bible is the Word of God, or that the earth is only 6000 years old, but "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." I believe the available evidence is much more in harmony with my faith than it is with the whole evolutionary package. So that's the road I have to follow. I just don't have enough faith to believe in evolution, and it would require a lot of faith to do so.
I find it curious that evolutionary scientists are elevated to a status close to gods; while God is lowered to the level of an icompetent ruler who couldn't even achieve acccuracy in his instruction manual. I expect that from unblievers, but it's a sad commentary on the state of Christianity that so many professed Christians have developed that same mentality.
There are a host of other more accurate word choices. than "frighten." It has been used for many years by those who are unable to accept science WHEN it disagrees with previous views that appear in conflict.
People have choices of what they believe, but discussing the preference of Mormonism, for example, to Catholicism can never "prove" which is best. Attempting to convince those who are willing to accept as PROVISIONAL what scientists have discovered cannot agree to the terms when someone has already stated that anything that disagrees with previous opinions based on higher authority from the Bible, are playing baseball with basketball rulles–it doesn't work just as constantly changing th goal posts in football can never reveal the scores.
'
Continue preaching to the choir where you will be appreciated and never questioned.
Timo,
Yes. We should test assumptions – a posteriori. Assumptions are a priori statements or postitions.
Now, would you be kind enough to test your assumption that truth is the basis of faith? In simple english (not cryptic poetry) give me some a posteriori data, reference points, non circular arguments as to how that assumption is defended.
As for the other assumption that truth is the basis of science. I will stick my neck out and suggest it is not. Rather, science is a tool used to seek out the best possible explanation of a given set of data or the like. I think it was Joe who made the point earlier that we can move closer to what is true through this process, but does science ever claim to have the truth or be based upon truth? I didn't think so.
If we agree on your other assumption: that the Bible is a relational narrative – what pray tell – in plain words does that mean in real life? And is there another assumption in there – that it should indeed be relied upon to maintain relationships within the community? I thought the Muslims and other faiths did the same thing re their "books". Why the Bible? Can you test that assumption too?
I'm being a little blunt because I am just about over being tactfull and having conversations go on forever with clear questions or points ignored or dismissed with lists like David gave. Most of the points within which both he and I would agree are drivel.
Cheers
btw…I might just clarify re that list of David's. There are good points within it, and I am probably being too harsh. But, in the context of uniformity and the points I make, bringing that in as a proof, to me makes no sense.
The very debate we are having is because we (I think) believe we should test assumptions. That is the very reason behind my list re Cliffs etc. It is also the basis for my frustration with your post, and David and Darrel's recent posts. We cannot seem to actually do so, but bounce around from one defence to another when clear answers would be most valuable. In the context of this debate I see the list as a nonsense straw man.
Hello everyone; I see you are all hard at it. I think Brother David's post about assumptions is right on the money. “ . . . . we first have to agree on our assumptions. And scientific assumptions are accepted by faith not by proof. And the way we come to those assumptions determines which ones we will accept.” So, true! We must accept some basic assumptions as foundational in order to build on. We must assume we are real and that the world is real. We must assume that our senses are trustworthy to a point. We cannot forget Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason,’ and that there are hidden and unseen ‘neumina’ behind the visible phenomina. Relativity didn’t replace Newton, but opened up deeper truths, as quantum theory yet deeper. Nothing is truly ‘Uniform’ because our understanding is, as Elaine well stated, “provisional.”
But Basic assumption cannot be; we agree that we are all here I hope, physically at least 😉 Joke!
This leads me to my next point. One more basic assumption that is foundational to everything else is that our brains are capable of detecting Truth. The world is rational and we can think rationally.
Interwoven in this assumption must be Intelligent Design, otherwise we have no foundation for assuming our objective rationality. This fact really troubled Darwin, and other after him:
“The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”
Darwin, Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin D Appleton and Co. 1887), vol 1 Pg. 255
Richard Rorty, “The idea that one species of organism is, unlike all the others, oriented not just toward its own prosperity but toward Truth, is as un-Darwinian as the idea that every human being has a built-in moral compass—a conscience that swings free of both social history and individual luck.” ”Untruth and Consequences,” The New Republic, July 31, 1995, pp. 32-36.
This is why Chris I start from the ground up while not at all ignoring the terrain around me. And about that, I think you are right that the earth is much much older that 6000 years. I also believe the standard ages given are way way way too long. We are discovering Dino’s with moist connective tissues and red blood cells in fine shape. But for me this issue is not core Biblically or otherwise. But that’s me!
God bless richly
Hi Darrel,
Ok, the earth is much older…but what about life upon it?
Are there internal claims within the Bible that is is a complete source of knowledge on every possible subject? Or does it point us to God and His dealings with men in the past and the future?
When did it become the last and final word on every possible subject: medicine, earth science, politics and economics? Who accepts the medical diagnoses and treatment found in the Bible?
When the default position on a difficult question is "it was a miracle; supernatural events cannot be explained" then all discussion ends. Any one can, and has chosen to dub as "miraculous" what he cannot explain rationally. This is religion?
Darrel,
If "the way we come to those assumptions determines which ones we will accept,” we are not in fact correctly testing our assumptions.
I think the most difficult thing when testing assumptions is to remove ourselves from our pre existing biases, a priori beliefs etc. And, yes, these do affect the way we test our assumptions.
If we recognise this, it is possible to come at or test our assumptions in such a way as to move toward a greater appreciation of what may be true or right. ie the "best answer" to a given question.
The problem here, is that too many have one untouchable assumption. The Bible is the final authority. These people cannot test their assumptions openly, fairly, and logically. Indeed, when they come at their assumptions in this way, little to nothing will change. It cannot.
I agree with what you say Chris (and Elaine).
Especially, from a fundamentalist view one’s
assumptions about the Bible, not only not warranted
Biblically, can cause crisis of faith that need not be.
The only perfect Word of God would be Christ Himself.
To all,
My final comment on this thread will be one on the original question. Is there a way forward?
Well, to take a line from Clifford, which was quoted in Dr Taylor's blog above. If Christian's continue to hold the assumption man's theories are always flawed, vs. the assumption that the Word of God is not, the answer will be no.
I suspect it is difficult to get some fundamentalist thinking people to test their assumption that their interpretation may be flawed. It is next to impossible to get them to test their assumption that the Bible is not flawed, or indeed may not qualify for the heavenly status of final authority.
Until these last two assumptions are held up for honest test, there will be no way forward. That will probably only happen on an individual basis.
Some of the absence of clear answers to questions on this thread suggest that who pays whom and who thereby controls whom also plays a role. Can't lose our jobs over our integrity perhaps.
Cheers
cb25
Now I understand why you and I and maybe many others are not able to have a productive conversation. Your word "drivel" referring to what I write let me know that you never thought about anything I said for even one second. You already had your mind made up for why should you think about drivel. I agree. I would not want to spend any more time on drivel either. It is sad that we have to part that way.
However, I do still want to count you as a friend and if I am in Australia (and I have been there several times) I would still like to have that cup of tea that you offered earlier. As we say in England, Cheerio.
David,
For the last time. I did make a hasty judgment on the content of the list from the College. In the right context it makes some fair points.
I also read through less times than I should have your post because I was brassed off that yet again you had come back with something other than actually answering my points directly. I apologise for that haste.
But, let me make very clear. I happen to believe that you do and are dodging salient points in my what I say, and that just bringing in yet "another" angle, or line servers no purpose until earlier points are at least acknowledeged. In that sense we have probably both submitted some drivel. Not to mention some others.
You take Horrace's last post, and my reply to him. Maybe my logic is faulty, but unless someone can show me how so, his point is completely invalidated because it is a one way street. Good enough for him to throw out the conclusions of generations of observation about how our world is, and yet hold firm to his view which is completely shaped by a "faith" statement in a book which neither he nor you can demonstrate in any a posteriori fashion should be relied upon in such a way. Thus, that too was a drivel comment. By which I mean illogical, dishonest, self incriminating, and unfair.
Yes, the cuppa still stands:) Probably neither of us is as stubborn in real life as we may appear to each other!
All the best.
Chris
At the risk of provoking the wrath of my personal private peace and love investigator on this site; let me concur that there really is—and should be—no way forward, so to speak, for those who claim that the Bible should be interpreted allegorically if and when it is in conflict with general scientific opinion and those who could not care less what general scientific opinion is when it is conflict with what the Bible says.
So you would be happy for the rest of us who take neither position to find ways to go forward?
I do not pretend to understand at all what the “other” position might be.
Chris
You need to take into account what I have been calling the TARDIS prinicple: arguments must take into account the context. If you're not familiar with Dr Who, the Tardis is his space craft and is bigger on the inside than on the outside. It works because the inside is never in exactly the same space annd time as the outside. Science can be dismissed because it rests on unprovable assumptions, while theology can be upheld even though it also rests on unprovable assumptions because the two issues are always held apart. Therefore one has nothing to do with the other. We can dismiss scientific evidence because scientists don't agree on much, while igonoring the same argument about theologians (or church members) because the two ideas are not held together. The same with using the NT to determine what an ideal church would be like, but using the same NT to show that the church has always been deeply flawed. We can use science – or any human knowledge – to support our ideas, while dismissing them as 'merely human' and therefore deeply flawed and irrelevant when they don't support our position. We can insist on rigourous tests for anyone who claims to be a prophet, while arguing that special allowances must be made for Ellen White becasue she is a prophet.
Just as the Tardis can be bigger on the inside than the outside because the two are never in exactly the same place and time, so we can hold contradictory ideas and methods if we don't ever bring the two together. Methods and arguments are only appropriate if used in the right context. Arguing with this practice gets you branded as a trouble maker and unbeliever, but will change nothing as the correctness of the practice is so obvious to those who use it. It is the conclusion that matters, not the argument. For many who disagree with your conclusion, how you argue, or how they argue against you, is not the issue. You are wrong, they are right, all else is shifting sand.
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for that thoughtful observation. I had not heard of the TARDIS principle, but at face value it would seem to have a lot in common with Stephen J Gould's Non Overlapping Magesteria. Perhaps it would also be subject to similar criticisms.
I certainly get your point about being branded a trouble maker etc.
Cheers
Chris,
The Nonoverlapping Magesteria idea is different. It says that science is the right tool to answer questions about the physical world, the Bible/theology is the right tool to answer questions about the spiritual world. If there were two worlds, I would agree, but I believe there is only one.
I am talking about the practice of judging an argument or a method of arriving at an answer in individual circumstances by the answer you arrive at. You brought up uniformitarianism. It can be judged both as a ridiculous idea that is full of holes when used to support evolution, and as common sense when used to support creation becasue it is not judged on its own merit, but on the answer it supports. So also science that supports creation is good, science that supports evolution is merely wishful thinking and probably not real science. Neither science nor the scientific method is judged as a method, but according to the results. When archaeologists and scholars find and translate manuscripts from the Dead Sea Scrolls that show that our current Bible exists back at least as far as the time of Jesus, that is reliable scholarship and our papers will quote freely to prove that we can trust the Bible. When the same archaeologists and scholars, using the exact same methods, report that there are scrolls that also support the Septuagint and Samaritan versions, that is either not reported or dismissed for various reasons. In one case the scholarship is reliable, in the other it is not. It is the answer – the context – that makes it reliable or not, not the method itself. So the one method can be valid and invalid without contradiction because, like the inside and outside of the Tardis, they are never viewed together, in the same time and space.
So you cannot lead many SDAs to assume there is a problem with anything that supports their ideas, because anything that supports their (or God's) ideas is necessarily good. There is no problem with saying that the exact same thing when used to oppose SDA ideas is bad and wrong, because that is also self-evident. The two situations are different becasue of the answer, not the method or argument. The same data can also be used to support contradictory conclusions because each conclusion is always considered alone, not with the other.
A clear example is to imagine a small island, half RC, half SDA. If a storm comes and destroys the SDA church and leaves the RC church standing, it obviously comes from the Devil. If it destroys the RC church and leaves the SDA church standing, it obviously was sent by God. OT thinking would have been consistent and said in both cases that God was showing his anger. Apart from a few fringe groups, most SDAs know without a doubt that God does not harm his people, so it must be the Devil. The answer/result determines the correct interpretation. By viewing only one situation at a time, you are never forced to face the fact that the argument you refute in one context is the argument you rely on in another. All arguments – from science, from theology, from virtually anything – are valid if they give the right answer, invalid if they don't.
Kevin,
Wow. Thanks for that elaboration.
If that kind of thinking exists, and I figure it does and is exhibited here every so often, what hope is there of genuine dialog? Not much I guess.
I appreciate the insights you have provided. I plan anyway, as things stand atm to absent from AT for a good while. I would probably describe people who hold this kind of thinking in less than tactful ways after this current set of input. I have found it particularly frustrating. What you have said does provide insight into the possible mindsets at play here. Mine included of course.
Have you got any suggestions what motivates or drives people to fall into this (would it be totally wrong to call it almost schizophrenic?) method of thinking?
I almost wonder if it may come back to this issue of granting the Bible absolute authority. Once that action/decision has occured it seems that all logic and rational analysis goes. Is this what enables one to step into the TARDUS ship?:)
Anyway, really thinking out loud..
Cheers
This way of thinking is modelled from many pulpits, and most SS classes every week. It also shows up in official sources now and then. When I have pointed this out to people, the two most common responses are 1) "yeah, that's the way it is, and it won't change so why cause a fuss?"; or 2) "huh?? What's the problem?" If you want a one word sociological explanation: habitus. When you are socialised into seeing something a particular way, and everyone around you (except perhaps one or two outcasts) sees things that way, then it becomes not only 'normal', but 'natural'. The more time I spend studying social science the more I understand why most SDAs are suspicious of us – we ask the wrong questions. We are meant to ask the questions that the church has prepared answers for, and we don't.
For me, the only reasons to join a dialogue are that 1) silence is too often taken as consent and I feel the need to protest at times; and 2) there are genuine enquirers out there and I want them to know that their questions and objections are acceptable. The only reason I am still an SDA is that my time at Avondale taught me that there are different ways to be an SDA, and I would like to pass that on to others. As a non-employee, I can say what I believe without consequences – at least until my wife finds out 🙂
cb25 said, "I almost wonder if it may come back to this issue of granting the Bible absolute authority."
Excuse me. I thought this was part of being a Protestant. If the Bible doesn't have absolute authority then we can all go about creating our own spiritual reality–which is exactly what many professed Christians are doing these days.
Some things in Scripture are not subject to "logic and rational analysis," because they transcent the limits of human logic and rationality. "Spiritual things are spiritually discerned."
And so we arrive at the crux of the problem: Biblical authority or man's faulty reasoning. I'll go with the former because the latter hasn't served us to well over the last several millenia.
Being a Christian is about granting God absolute authority. Because he stands behind the Bible, it also has authority, but I hesitate to give it ultimate authority, not only because it is not God, but because it always comes mediated by our humanity. When we forget that the Bible is not only written by humans (under inspiration, an important point, but the humanness remains) but also interpreted by humans, we tend to give the words themselves an authority they were not meant to have. The authority of the Bible is derived, not ultimate authority. In the end, in practice, most people who claim to give the Bible ultimate authority really give ultimate authority to their understanding of the Bible. I don't see how that really differs from giving man's understanding of science or anything else the ultimate authority. It is still in effect creating 'our own spiritual reality'. The Bible, as a tool of the Holy Spirit, has authority, but outside that context it is just words. I have seen too many people so reliant on their understanding of the Bible that for practical purposes God may as well not exist. What Christ said to the Pharisees still remains a warning to all of us "You search the Scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life …" Replacing God with the Bible is just as much idolatry as replacing him with anything else.
Here we go again, Kevin (Biblical authority).
Let’s grant, for the sake of discussion, that most individuals, who consider the Bible to be authoritative, interpret the Bible differently.
Even with that being the case, how can it be viewed as partially authoritative?
Besides the Holy Spirit, what source material can possibly be more authoritative than the source by which knowledge that there is a Holy Spirit is derived? Even if people interpret the Bible in varying ways, as long as nothing replaces the primacy of Biblical authority—or Biblical authority isn’t ceded to some other authority—we must trust the Holy Spirit to get to us, and guide us into all truth.
I am no more comfortable with 'partially authoritative' than I am with 'ultimate authority'. When the Holy Spirit works through the Bible it has the full weight of his authority. But the authority resides in the Holy Spirit as God, not the Bible itself. It is like an ambassador. When speaking on behalf of his country, what he says has the authority of his country behind it. But in himself he has no authority. He is merely a tool to convey a message with authority from someone else.
If we see the Bible as having authority in itself we treat it differently to if we see it as a tool God uses to communicate with us. In practice there is some differenc ebetween saying "The Bible says, so I must obey" and "I believe God tells me in the Bible, so I must obey". You seem to see an infallible, inerrant book that tells you the Truth, I see a human – and therefore at times errant and fallible – book produced under inspiration by God through which the God of Truth communicates with humans. God is not diminished in any way by any defects in the Bible as written nor the obvious defects introduced by our attempts to understand it. The Bible is a tool God uses to teach us. It is not the source of Truth, God is. Our focus on the Bible and on its authority has led to the situation where far too many people have more faith in the Bible – and their ability to interpret it correctly – than they do in God. God alone saves us, not the Bible, no matter how correctly we may understand the Bible.
I seem so far to have failed to express what I believe in a way that you can understand, so it is possible I have done so again.
Kevin,
For what it’s worth, I personally have a lot of respect for the way you think and express your thoughts.
However in this case, you’re right; you have failed to explain what you believe in a way that I can understand.
It seems that you have quite a nuanced position that I truly cannot grasp.
“When the Holy Spirit works through the Bible it has the full weight of his authority,” for example. When the Holy Spirit works through the Bible? Since the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible writers and imparts God’s intents and purposes to us through it, what does this actually mean?
It is possible to read the Bible without any involvement of the Holy Spirit. If you doubt that, just look at some of the crazy things people have believed based on the Bible. When we go searching the Bible for texts to prove we are right and others are wrong, can we really claim it is the Holy Spirit speaking through the Bible at those times, or is it merely our defense of what we already believe? If God does not stand behind what we say the words mean, how much authority do they really have?
OK, I get that people can believe differing things while still claiming the Bible as the authority on which they base their belief; I think I grasp that.
What I don’t get is why you don’t consider the Bible the ultimate authoritative source about God, including the Holy Spirit.
Just because people who talk or write about God or about the Bible and may consider God or the Bible to be their authority are not necessarily connected with God through or by His Spirit, does not mean that the Bible is any less of an (ultimate) authoritative source.
Then again, as I write this, your point is actually becoming a little clearer. Perhaps considering the Bible—through the Holy Spirit—as its own interpreter is as close to common ground as we’ll get.
"The Bible as its own interpreter" is, in my experience, saying that we can make the Bible say what we want it to. At a high level – that of doctrine or theology – there is some truth in it, but as usually practiced it defies logic and common sense.
Perhaps our common ground is that the Bible is the foundation of Christian belief and practice. I suspect we have more in common with how we use the Bible in practice than we do in theory when it comes to how we understand the Bible. It probably all goes back to me seeing the Bible as God's opening piece in what he intends to be an extended conversation rather than as a set of answers that ends the conversation.
Perhaps one way to understand why I don't consider the Bible as the ultimate source is to consider the question: which came first for the disciples – their understanding of what Scripture meant, or their experience of God coming into the world in the person of Jesus? Or: how did people find and follow God from creation (whenever you wish to date that) and when Moses first sat down to write the Pentateuch? I believe God chooses in many cases to use the Bible to reveal himself to people. But he has other methods, and is not restricted to only using the Bible. Like church, it is useful but not essential. We would be fools not to make the best use of the Bible possible, but I believe we are equally fools if we believe God does not work outside the Bible just as he works outside the SDA church.
It is God – however he chooses to reveal himself to us – who is the centre of our faith, not the Bible. The Bible is a witness to God's acts, and to the extent we find God through it it is his word to us. The most sublime statements of faith in God are found in Job and Habbakkuk. Both come in response to an experince of the living God, not from reflection on the Bible. The Bible is God's second greatest gift to us – after the gift of himself – but in comparison to God himself, it is just meaningless words. When we use the word 'ultimate', it really should be in reference to God, not anything in this world.
Well, as long as in your ongoing conversation with God, nothing supplants the Bible as source authority, we are in agreement.
If your conversation with Him consists of answered prayer or worshipful service or inexplicable joy or soulful experience or personal encounter, I dare not call that into question.
The Bible, by way of the Holy Spirit, being its own interpreter cannot be incorrect however because the Spirit is infallible; and it was the Spirit that inspired the Bible writers in the first place.
People can make the Bible say or “mean” sundry things; but since everybody can’t be right, what difference does that make?
Nothing that contradicts the Bible is true.
Make that last statement "Nothing that contradicts the Bible (rightly interpreted by the Holy Spirit) is true" and we have definitely found something we can agree on 🙂
"The Bible is the sacred sciptures of our holy religion as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based."
It is a waste of time when one has already established the immovability of a previous position: it is a confession of a closed mind through which no light can enter and conversely, through which no light can be emitted.
Shouldn't someone's faith be strong enough without marshalling the evidence of science? Does faith need more than one's own acceptance? Does faith mean endorsement by others? What did the writer of Hebrews mean that "Faith is the conviction of things not seen"?
Did the early Christian martyrs need more evidence of faith than their confessions?
"…and immediate invitation to leave 'their community.'"
Would you kindly elaborate on what this means or to whom you are referring? (I am asking for a clarification because my name was mentioned in this post.)
I try to be as direct as possible; and I try not to be cute or cryptic or anything but direct.
(The obvious exception, of course, being when I failed to mention you by name in a previous post on this thread.)
If I could get you to kindly answer my question as to what “…and immediate to leave ‘their community’” means and to whom you had reference, I would appreciate it.
“Well, to take a line from Clifford, which was quoted in Dr Taylor's blog above. If Christian's continue to hold the assumption man's theories are always flawed, vs. the assumption that the Word of God is not, the answer will be no.”
In concurring with cb25 that there is no conversational common ground “way forward” between those who believe that the Bible should be interpreted allegorically—if and when what it says is in contradiction to general scientific opinion—and those who couldn’t care less what general scientific opinion is if/when it contradicts what the Bible says, is that an invitation for someone to leave my community, or Horace Butler’s? (Is that what you consider condemnatory language? Can it be construed as “hate speech”?)
I doubt very, very seriously that either of us is a prophet. Well, at least I’m not. I will try not to judge you by speaking for God. Perhaps you can try to do likewise.
You needn't apologize for bothering me, unless it makes you feel better; and you shouldn’t think that you are discomforting/discomfiting me.
I think this is productive, and so must you, I would imagine (or hope).
Let me get this straight though, you are the man standing in the gap, trying to give me hand out of a ditch that I have dug, right?
I suppose I should now express gratitude?
Well, I would be grateful if you could tell me how agreeing with cb25 is immediately inviting others to leave my community, or the shared community of Horace?
Am I inviting cb25 to do so?
Timo,
I was going to leave your points as I'm trying to make an exit from this thread, but don't want to leave too many loose threads from my input. So, here I am.
In your response you seem to have moved the goal post. I understood you to be saying truth was the basis of faith etc. Now I read you saying the quest of faith is to find out truth. So too for science. I think that is exactly what I was saying. As with my euphemism. The very next line pointed out that science was a tool to move us closer to what is true. OK, seems we agree on that:)
That brings us back to the "accepted assumptions" which you say equally underlie each one.
This is where I will come back to David's list of assumptions and the point 5 he liked:
"Assumptions are accepted without proof. They form the basis of all scientific thinking."
Mate, that is soooo wrong imo. "Proof" is evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."
In this sense there are a thousand proofs underlying each of the "assumptions" in that list.
That is the quest of science, to take what is seen, can be studied, analysed, understood, theorized about – and move to the best possible answer or explation. Truth if you like, but always open to grow.
Now, if you are going to put faith and science on the same ground and rules in their quest for truth. What are the Tools which faith uses? Demonstrate them. Explain how they work. Tell me how you test their results a posteriori.
Timo, I appreciated you reply, but apart from that we need to work together, love each other and accept anybody and everybody into "our community". (and who defines that?), there was little concrete. It's all nice to theorize.
Stephen and Timo,
Stephen, I think the point you and I concur on is when I said that there can be no way forward. I think you take that position because you believe there should not be. For you any way forward would be compromise. As you and I know, we would disagree on that part of it. But, at least I think I understand your position and reasons for that stance.
Timo. I don't understand yours. You see yourself as standing in the "gap". Who's gap? How do you know its the right "gap"? And you stoop down to give a hand up? I'm not Stephen, (my question elicited the points) but it seems rather arrogant.
From what I have read of you so far it seems to me you have moved your "position" to one which is so theoretical, so defined by "community", "love" etc, that it is unfalsifiable. It is safe. But, it is also a place from where you can stand in judgement of almost anything or anyone who for some reason or another does not "agree" with your nebulous position.
What is my main point? Perhaps that even from the most "loving" and "sanctimonious" position we can in fact be the least so. Perhaps even exhibit an attitude which itself digs a ditch.
Cheers
wow.
I am mostly just a reader of the comments made here. However, I have a question I am hoping someone might answer ( perhaps Joe Erwin).
If I were to enroll in a graduate studies program in genomics at some respectable university, I would suppose that in my first year I would need to take a course called Genomics 401 or called Foundations of Genomics. It would be a course designed for senior undergraduate or beginning graduate students that would thoroughly examine the foundational principles of the discipline. Many areas of study involving significant conceptual content seem to have such a course. Such a course is the first in which the student does not encounter the notice that justification for some claim made is beyond the scope of this book. Usually in any given subject the textbook selectors have the choice of one of a small number of standard texts. Could someone tell me what the most popular Foundations of Genomics 401 type text is?
I suppose, for example, that in such a text I would find discussion of how one defines a species at the level of DNA and whether one encounters the problems of definition one finds in the more traditional approaches. One would expect careful descriptions of differing means of calculating a percent similarity between two DNA sequences. Most importantly for the discussions that have appeared here, one might hope to find through discussion of methods and algorithms for mapping past evolutionary development and the success of such methods.
Thanks
Norman & Jane,
Joe has indicated he is not going on AT atm, but he would be glad to hear directly from anyone on AT. His address is
agingapes AT gmail DOT com
Just replace the AT and DOT with the usual, and I'm sure he can offer you some wisdom on your question.
Cheers
Well, wonder of wonders, Mr.Butler and I agree: Human reasoning about the Bible and human reasoning about the physical world share the same problem: human reasoning. See, we can indeed all get along.
2015 is when foundamental belief number 6 will be fixed and then all adventists will be united . 3 more years .
When has changing a fundamental believe ever changed anything? No one is likely to change their mind, no matter which way the vote goes, so we will be no more united after the vote than before it. And I would not count on many churches removing anyone from membership over this issue. Most opponents will still be here, and still be officially SDAs 'in good and regular standing'.
Hello everyone, I have been so busy and not had time to check in here. Chris, I am sorry that you and Joe have left the discussion. Please give inpute now and then. I would love to here what you think ID's strong points are and what its weak points are. Elaine, thank you always for you comments. Your last thought here however I personally can't get my mind around, "shouldn't someone's faith be strong enough without marshalling the evidence . . . " Can you think of a more dangerious thing than having faith in something–without evidence? Maybe you were trying to illustrate this fact.
God bless.
Norman & Jane Smith, I am not sure what you were asking, but it reminded me of some material on Epigenetics and Convergence. Joe would be more informed. But I have been reading that more and more researchers are concluding that similarity in nature is not everywhere the product of common descent. Organisms can display similarities of sequence, form, or life history that cannot be accounted for by their family tree. Homoplasy is the technical term assigned to this—“tree-jumping” or "convergent evolution" Conway Morris has written a huge amount on this topic. In the past, evolutionary biologists have dealt with homoplasy by ignoring it. Any trait identified as due to homoplasy was eliminated from the tree-drawings. But now that we have access to DNA sequence data, we are finding more and more cases of homoplasy — similarity in sequence or structure that can't possible be due to common descent. Eyes and wings, for example, being invented and re-invented 5 or 6 times in completely different and unrelated branches of life. We are learning that the similarity of DNA that codes for proteins in differing species tells us very little about relationships as such. For example, over 90% of our DNA that codes for proteins are similar to monkeys but, 60% is similar to a mouse and 35% the same as a daffodil. You see the problem. We are not 35% daffodil. We now know that this DNA that codes for proteins only accounts for 10% of all our DNA. The other 90%, what used to me called “junk DNA” is actually the programming for how to use, “regulate” the basic DNA. The "junk DNA" is actually part of the epigenetical 'operating system,' of the computors,– the amazingly complex lines of code that conducts the symphony of programs and adaptations to environmental neccessities that make life work. Examples include recently discovered surprised functionality in some pseudogenes, microRNAs, introns, LINE and ALU elements. (Sternberg, 2002, Sternberg and Shapiro, 2005; McIntosh, 2009a).
The basic protein coding DNA is somewhat similar across families and phyla. This DNA we share with monkeys and daffodils are like the basic keys on the keyboard of various musical instruments. What makes the difference is the musical scores that ‘plays’ those basic keys in a very organized way to create harmonious outcomes–music. The keys on the piano can be ‘played’ in millions of ways by the execution of the ‘regulatory codes’ – the sheet music or what used to be called “junk.’ All this is the grand production of an engineer and master musician—God.
Darrel,
If I was unclear (probably the first time 😉 in this comment:
"shouldn't someone's faith be strong enough without marshalling the evidence . . . "
My understanding of faith is that it is a very personal and a very subjective view, usually attributed to one's religious faith. We demand evidence in most areas of our life: What is the proof that this car gets x amount of mpg? What is the evidence that the treatment being recommended has been shown to be effective? What evidence is there that this ship will not sink? What evidence can be given that cigarette smoking causes cancer?
What sort of evidence does one's personal faith demand other than what will personally satisfy and make sense to him? Does it need to be proved to anyone else?
Faith: belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion; firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Which definition are you choosing when you write of faith?
Thank you Elaine. ” firm belief in something for which there is no proof.”. Every cult leader of course promotes this naive definition for obvious reasons. I believe ‘faith’ is just one step beyond ‘fact.’ “always be ready to give (( the reason )) the hope you have.” 1 Pt 3:15 Faith must must must be based on evidence, but faith certainly often should be an extrapolation that reaches beyond but in the direction that evidence demands. Does this make sense? God bless
If by one's life he demonstrates that love is the product of faith, but if it only leads to a list of duties it will not be a positive influence on others.