How Modern Faith Has Strange Bedfellows
by Herb Douglass
I know that I may be opening myself to scalding censure when I refer to two modern examples (among many) of seduction in the ‘high places’ of government and academia! Imagine: In the third week of August, the Texas Governor is labeled as ‘anti-science’ for disputing humans are causing global warming and evolution is ‘a theory’ with ‘some gaps in it.’
Seemingly blind to their devotion, advocates of ‘global warming’ and ‘evolutionary theory’ jumped to the occasion, proclaiming their faith as sincerely, and yes, as aggressively as Elmer Gantry and his copycats!
Many once-true believers are now saying in full-throated regrets how wrong they have been. And the frustrated anger of the ‘faithful’ who sense cracks in their ‘impregnable’ temples rises almost in synch on their favorite airwaves and newsprint.
Makes one wonder, as an aside, about all those who believe they follow truth wherever the facts take them. True, when Darwin published, The Origin of Species (1859), the protozoa were thought to be very simple and primitive. It was much easier to dream, imagine and speculate.
But along came the development of high definition electron microscopes, the discovery of DNA, and the developments in chemical engineering. Modern molecular biology has demonstrated cells are actually enormously complex. For those who built their faith on facts and not on imagination, and after reviewing the data, there is overwhelming evidence that no naturally evolving process could ever have produced life in any form.
But mental and psychological imprints are very hard to erase. This happens in all fields of study, as much in theology as in the natural sciences. This is not a criticism or indictment — just a recognition of reality we all must confront, in ourselves as in others.
One of the interesting pillars of evolutionary faith is ‘time.’ Evolution religion is built on the foundation of the doctrine of time. The theory becomes the fact. However, regardless of the amazing advances in mathematics and computer technology coming together to demonstrate that given an unlimited amount of time, even trillions and trillions of years, no amount of time is enough for life to happen by chance.
In the Introduction to the 1971 edition to Darwin’s, The Origin of Species, are these words: “The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded in an unproven theory. Is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is exactly parallel to belief in special creation” (Dr. L. H. Harrison Matthews).
Matthews is not a nut-case. No more than Charles Darwin was when he wrote in his chapter called, Difficulties with the Theory:1 “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
For me, this is not only honest but a profound statement that seems terribly overlooked or at least forgotten.
How come the Darwinian Theory saw the light of day beyond a few lectures in England? How come one man’s theory without internal logic could capture the imagination and help alter dramatically the course of 19th Century philosophical and theological thought?
For those who know the philosophical and theological currents of the mid 19th century, nothing could have been more timely, more welcome. Confidence in the reliability of the Bible had been shattered by higher criticism. Schleiermacher’s broad thrust of subjectivism was finding a lot of support, the winds of optimism were blowing as never before, modern inventions on all levels were helping create an atmosphere of progress (which, in itself, helped to spawn a new level of idealism) — and then came Darwin to provide a ‘scientific reason’ that the world is indeed ‘getting better.’ The time had come for Darwin’s theory of evolution to explain everything! It not only explained, it exploded, imprinting the minds of most every child over the next 150 years.
Michael Ruse, professor of philosophical biology at Florida State University, considers himself an atheist and states plainly it is impossible to reconcile the Christian faith with evolutionary theory. But he states clearly that evolution is a religion: “Evolution as promoted by its practitioners is more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit one complaint…the literalists [i.e., creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution today.”2
Many are the directions I could now go but perhaps Sir Antony Flew is about the best illustration of a great champion of atheism who stunned the natural science world in 2004 when he admitted DNA discoveries changed his whole picture of how life happened.3
We remember his famous article, Theology and Falsification, in 1950 that set the agenda for modern atheism. In reviewing his earth-shaking decision in 2004, in part, he said: “In this symposium, when asked if recent work on the origin of life pointed to the activity of a creative intelligence, I said, "Yes. I now think it does…almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source."
“My departure from atheism was not occasioned by any new phenomenon or argument. Over the last two decades, my whole framework of thought has been in a state of migration. This was a consequence of my continuing assessment of the evidence of nature. When I finally came to recognize the existence of God, it was not a paradigm shift, because my paradigm remains, as Plato in his Republic scripted his Socrates to insist: We must follow the argument wherever it leads.”4
Although Flew blew a hole in what some called ‘settled science,’ we must also note he did not become a convert to Christianity.
Some other time I would like to look at the argument for ‘the irreducible minimum’ that altered ‘settled science’ with the continuing torrent of information from those working with unraveling of DNA. What a story!
What I have learned over the years is to avoid the cult-of-experts trap. It happens in theology as well as in all other branches of knowledge. We see it on most news programs where certain experts get hooked on a certain story line, year after year. Such as anthropomorphic global warning, or spend ourselves out of recession (Keynesian models), etc.
To avoid this cult-of-experts trap, we should ask a simple question: Who is quoting whom?
In this day of academic hyperspecialization, it is too easy to hitch one’s car to a star, hoping some of the star dust will fall on him or her. It surely can ruin bright young people — until they catch on, perhaps. Plato was right, speaking through Socrates, “We must follow the argument wherever it leads.”
We must avoid bending facts or logic to fit in with the group.That’s the opposite of falling into the cult-of-expert trap.
1 Darwin, The Origin of the Species, 143.
2 Ruse, Michael, “Saving Darwinianism from the Darwinians.” National Post, May13, 2000, 33.
3 Dallas Morning News, December 15. 2004.
4 Flew, Antonym There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: Harper/Collins, 2007. 75, 88, 89.
Herb,
You wrote:
"One of the interesting pillars of evolutionary faith is ‘time.’ Evolution religion is built on the foundation of the doctrine of time. The theory becomes the fact. However, regardless of the amazing advances in mathematics and computer technology coming together to demonstrate that given an unlimited amount of time, even trillions and trillions of years, no amount of time is enough for life to happen by chance."
I am curious, the computer technology you mention, might that be a reference to those researchers who see advanced software being developed without human programmers through emulated evolutionary processes, or is your mention of computer technology limmited to the increase of computing power?
One way of identifying good science is the ability of the paradigm to produce predictions which when confirmed adds strength to the model while if rejected reduces it. Therefore, because the world was created in one week ~6kya, we expect to make this observation when studying the genetic code, whereas making a different observation would require either rejection or rethinking the model. I know this process is used regularely in biology including those branches thereof which work with evolution as its main tool. I am however unaware of this process being used with creation science. As you undoubtedly have studied the subject in preparation for this blog, I am sure you will be able to provide me with the appropriate references.
Finally, in your concluding paragraphs, you advice against using "argument from authority". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Yet, I find the Texas Governor, Darwin, Dr Matthews, Dr Ruse and Sir Flew quoted or referenced in your text supporting your conclusions. Would you mind explaining this apparent inconsistency for me?
Herb, great article! Thanks very much.
Darwinism and creationism are indeed competing faiths, which is why it makes no sense whatsoever for Adventists to pay teachers to proselytize for Darwinism. Why should one faith actually collude in and subsidize the conversion of its own adherents to another faith?
I do have a quibble, in that neither side is "following the evidence wherever it leads."
Mainstream science has an absolutely unshakable committment to naturalism. It only considers naturalistic explanations and implications. It doesn't matter that DNA is an alphabet that is arranged so as to create intelligent information, proving that an intelligent mind is behind life; science simply isn't going to follow that evidence to that very apparent and obvious conclusion. Science's philosophical committment to naturalism is ironclad.
By the same token, I as a creationist have a religious committment to interpet the data of nature according to the biblical model of a recent supernatural creation followed by a world-destroying Flood. It doesn't matter that the evidence could easily be interpreted otherwise; I'm going to follow the biblical model, and interpret the evidence accordingly. To say that I'm "just following the evidence wherever it leads" is a rhetorical device, a form of argument, and not really honest. The fact that mainstream science makes this dishonest claim wouldn't excuse me if I did it, too. (And some philosophically naive scientists make this claim honestly, because they simply do not understand the extent to which some explanations and implications of the evidence have been taken off the table by science's philosophical committment to naturalism.)
" as a creationist have a religious committment to interpet the data of nature according to the biblical model of a recent supernatural creation followed by a world-destroying Flood.'
You have that privilege just as every other member. But teachers are hired to teach science and the very word "science" means there must be some evidence for their subject. Science must, by its very essence, eliminate "supernatural" events" (a requirement for belief in the Bible's account). All the events of the creation described in the two accounts are outside the realm of explanation, and all supernatural events cannot be dissected, analyzed, or even explained.
If such "science" were to be taught, why the need of analyzing, dissecting, and studying the intricate parts of all life if it all could be so easily explained as "that's a miracle"? Please explain how a science teacher can explain a miracle.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.creationmoments.com/
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.grisda.org/
http://www.crev.info/
David, to paraphrase Kuhn's paradigm theory, both you and the scientist think within the box, especially when viewing the evidence, and both of you make sence within your own box, and for both of you the box of the other person is entierly incomprehensible. It would then be more correct to say that both sides are following the evidence wherever it leads, as long as it stays within the box, ie being explainable through natural causes for the scientist and being in agreement with Genesis in your case.
That's right, Thomas. In fairness, there is a great deal of freedom within each model, so someone within a narrow specialty can "follow the evidence wherever it leads" without running up against the boundaries of the model. Thus, it probably appears to most scientists that are following the evidence wherever it leads, and they'd probably be offended by the suggestion that they really cannot. That is in part due to the narrowness of specialization, and in part due to the fact that it would never occur to mainstream scientist to interpret the data other than according to the dominant model, or to suggest that his discoveries implicate design or point to a designer, etc.
David,
This applies equally in both directions. Someone with a narrow reading of genesis will also be convinced he is following the evidence wherever it leads in the same way as does the scientists. Similarly, as it would not occur to the scientist to see a designer in biology, it would not occur to the YEC to see a natural explanation for the same. Both are equally blind to the other box.
From a non-scientist, it appears that scientists are always seeking answers; and one that might be "it" today, may not be tomorrow.
OTOH, to a non-scientist, it seems that YEC and ID has already found the answers, but are seeking better explanations.
The former does not stop seeking answers, but the latter has all the answers in an Intelligent Designer with supernatural abilities–something that also can be neither studied or explained–it is simply the inevitable conclusion to all questions.
I have been wondering when Herb would venture into this topic and what would happen when he did. Now we know. As expected, David Read uses the occasion to make his often repeated comment that “Mainstream science has an absolutely unshakable commitment to naturalism. It only considers naturalistic explanations and implications.” This is like saying that “Mainstream science has an absolutely unshakable commitment to science.” (There is a term that my teen age granddaughters use when someone says something obvious and a little odd, but since I’m trying to be polite and this is a serious and responsible blog, I will not repeat it here since I can’t repeat in writing their tone of voice).
Thomas has, in my view, offered an interesting and very helpful point by noting that what we have here are two, non-overlapping, conceptual “boxes.” There is the “modern scientific” box or worldview with its assumptions, rules of argumentation and what can be used as evidence. And then there is the “fundamentalist theological” box or worldview with its own assumptions, rules of argumentation, and what can be used as evidence. The question is which “box” has been more successful in explaining how the “real” world works. I think the answer is obvious.
Erv,
You have perhaps set up a false question. Modern science certainly seeks to discover, and helps to explain, how the natural world works; but cannot determine how the natural world that it investigates began.
Stephen is absolutely correct. As far as I understand my physics colleagues, how the "natural world . . .began" is, in the strict sense, not a scientific question. It is a theological or philosophical question, about which, scientists, speaking personally can have an opinion, but that opinion has no standing above a theological or philosophical opinion.
It is always amazing to watch the creationists scorn science as if they could even be the judge of the entire world of science. When these individuals decide to trust the biblical model of origins, at the same time they ignore the biblical models given by God in Leviticus on the proper diagnosis and treatment of disease.
Why the absolute willingness to accept in one area of science but in medical science they refuse to accept the Bible's direction and resort to the latest medical science has to offer, particularly if they are their loved ones are in need of the best that medical science has to offer.
This "pick and choose" method" which all Creationists adopt, reveals that they have a one-track system of categorizing what has little or no affect on them personally.
I, with Erv, was interested to see how an emphasis on faith in evolution would be accepted. Tom wanted me to elaborate on my appeal to authority when it seems like I was using authority to prove my points. I don't think I used authority as something that should be avoided. But I did note the cul-de-sac of appealing to the cult of experts. I think that Kuhn's paradigm has been a neat way of simply saying with different words what I mean by mental imprints that are unconsciously laid down by our parents and early school experiences. None of us find it easy to replace those imprints as we face the real facts of life, theologically or "scientifically.".
All we have to do is review the history of the last hundred years to see how once blind "experts" were willing to get out of their boxes. I think of the paleontologists who now recognize that the so-called evolutionary march has never produced even one sample of transition or gradualization. Or the biologists who simply stand in awe at the reducible minimum of the complex cell that requires so many components to even exist for a moment. Or tell us how the female "cell" suddenly appeared and sex happened! Hard for those in another box to simply accept the excuse that all we need is more time–that answer doesn't sound very "scientific."
I think Theodore Roszak, professor emeritus of history of California state history, has it right: "The irony is devastating. The main purpose of a Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But that theory replaces the God with an even more incredible deity– omnipotent chance." Unfinished Animal, 101, 102.
Perhaps, when our last day comes, it may matter as to how we "feel" about these topics. Cheers, Herb
Herb,
On the above issues I agree with you. To me, perhaps more important than the "day of worship" is it's importance in identifying we indeed do have a creator by whom all things were made and consist.
The science behind the evolution of man and anthopomorphic global warming alike discard our "active" creating and sustaining Creator God. Mankind thinking themselves wise has become but fools even declaring "manmade CO2" a dangerous gas. Attempting to control the less than the 6% that humanity has anything to do with.
Cheers,
pat
I wonder if Herb would please explain a little more about his comment about "the cul-de-sac of appealing to the cult of experts." Let me change the question a little: When Herb or anyone of us have a major medical problem. what type or group of individuals would we like to have telling us what needs to be done–a "cult of experts" or a group of individuals who are not medical experts?
Thanks, Pat, for that delicious man-made CO2 gas! Now, Erv, you know that we are now playing with words. I surely have nothing against experts but I am fearful of the "cult" of experts. Perhaps 25 years ago, the best of the experts didn't have a clue as to how to remedy certain physical problems but we used the best we had at the time. I am sure that there are certain experts in your field that you quarrel with.
From time to time, I go back to the first Easter. For those who are most interested in truth, where would any truth seeker look for what was happening– to intellect, science, common sense? Or is there a truth bigger than human reason, truth that transcends our ability to understand, the truth that flies in the face of the reality we experience and read about in the newspapers? Is there a reality more real than the harshness and finality of death?
We gather in churches to say yes, there is a reality that transcends our intellect. Yes, there is a God who can make a way where there is no way. The resurrection is the kind of truth that we cannot handle alone. I like what Emily Dickinson once said, "Truth must dazzle gradually or every man be blind." Just think, what if the resurrection story is actually true, not just someone's hope. What if the resurrection was this planet's lifetime happening, designed to demonstrate that there was hope after death, would that be a life changer?
Perhaps someone may say he would believe it if he could see it replicated. Would this be worth following as a reasonable challenge? Cheers, Herb
Herb,
If you plan a second article on this subject, may I challenge you to take a look at the strongest points of support which biology has and make an analysis from there.
"Perhaps, when our last day comes, it may matter as to how we "feel" about these topics."
Not sure if you left out it may "not" matter–as I am probably as close as you, Herb, to that "last day" and that, I can assure you, will not even be a thought. Either where we come from or where I may be going is totally of no concern. If we are truly judged by Christ's remarks in Matt. 25, nothing more than how we treated others will be of the least significance.
As for the lack of evidence of evolution; there are equally no evidences whatsoever by what method we are here, or the origin of this earth we call home. They are equally only choices one makes: where did the right proportion of gases for our life originate? Where did the storms, floods and hurricanes originate? At least, our ancient ancestors had answers: everything came from their god. Simple?
BRAVO, Elaine!
I don't want to turn this into a bifucated exchange, but may I respectfully suggest to Herb that, at least as far as I am aware, we are certainly not "playing with words."
There are certainly individuals within the scientific area I know something about with whom I disagree. But the disagreement is at the level of specific interspreations of details. I am not aware of any contempoary research-active archaeologist with an appointment at a major research university who thinks that human socieites have been on earth less than 10,000 years. That would strike them as simply a ludicrous belief not worthy of any serious discussion because the weight of the field evidence is overwhelingly against it.
Likewise, I am not aware of any research-active chemist who does not "believe' in the validity or meaninfulness of how the periodic table of elements is constructed. Even putting it like this would strike a chemist as a little odd. Likewise, I am not aware of any serious contemporary biologist who does not "believe" in the germ theory of disease. It is called a "theory" but the theory is so well established from a scientific perspective that it is simply a given.
I am also not aware of a contemporary research-active molecular biologist with an appointment at a major research university who questions the general idea that organisms have evolved from simple ot complex over a very long time measured in billions of years. Now some may certainly have and do question the explanation of how the dominant mechanisms of macroevolution works. In other words, they question if the NeoDarwinian natural selection model is adequate. There are certainly a few well-trained biologists who question the whole idea of macroevolution over billions of years. However, their objections are derived fundamentally from theological concerns and then they pick and choose the scientific literature to find little bits and pieces of things about which they can raise questions. Whether one likes it or not, these individuals are not taken seriously by the scientific mainstream.
Herb, you may wish to includel 95-99% of the current research-active biologists as belonging to a "cult," but I am sure that most readers will understand the context of why you make such a statement as well as why I must take issue with you.
When theologians believe that they are well-versed in the sciences and can easily dismiss all the wonderful discoveries made in the various field in the last 200 years they raise questions about their ability to criticize what they are most unfamiliar with. Theological questions should be addressed by those who specialize in that discipline; scientific questions should, likewise be left to those expert in those disciplines. Gould was right: trying to merge the two magisteria results in time wasted and only proving that they can never be otherwise.
Strange, all I tried to do was to raise several core questions that everyone is studiously avoiding. Everyone knows that I am not a specialist in geological time, nor in any other natural science area. I can ask questions, however, regarding the internal logic of some of these areas. Perhaps I'm not supposed to ask these questions. Frankly, I don't enjoy talking about the freaks of exhibits that seemed to be in most every museum that our schoolchildren are lectured on, imprinting them as as if what they see before their eyes are really the pre-historic animals and early human, man or woman so fabricated.
Going back to the issue of the cult of experts, I certainly have to recognize that it is just as dangerous in theology as in any other field of interest. . That is, group-think may take time to sort out, but time has away of getting at the truth and yes, it takes experts to do it who do not belong to the cult. Such seems to be the way history is made.
It seems to me, that faith in the supernatural needs the same kind of faith a wise scientist will have– the key word being humble. It keeps friendshiips together. Cheers, Herb
I’m all for humility—just so it is handed out in equal measure both on the scientific and theological side.
A comment by Herb revealed, at least to me, why there might be such little common ground on this topic. Herb said: “Frankly, I don't enjoy talking about the freaks of exhibits that seemed to be in most every museum that our schoolchildren are lectured on, imprinting them as if what they see before their eyes are really the pre-historic animals and early human, man or woman so fabricated.” “Freaks of exhibits”? Do you really think that these exhibits are made up? Is it possible, just possible, that you might even entertain the idea that dinosaurs and human fossils are just “made up” by “evilutionists?”
Should we equally disparage theologians who "make up" all sorts of reasons and explanations for the supernatural events which fill the Bible? Those are much more difficult to explain than the specimens in museums.
What about telling school children that all the wierd events in the Bible actually happened? Those even lack models.
Thank you for this blog, Herb. It is interesting that you did not set out in any way to use scientific authority to argue for creation. Yet what your antagonists have done is to try and shift the focus by debunking Creation as science. They seem to take the position that what scientists believe occured in the distant past, how and why it occurred (theory – not science), is settled science until scientific evidence is produced to refute their theories. Until those who question the Ptolemaic theory of evolution find retrospectoscopes to peer into deep history, and produce incontrovertible evidence refuting evolutionary theory, 21st Century astrologers will continue to consider evolutionary models settled science..
Those who produce mere logic and reason to question evolutionary theory, the distant past being for the most part inaccessible to the scientific method, are immediately forced into the Creation science camp by the true believers. To question the evidence behind a factual or scientific claim does not prove an alternative theory. The fact that I agree just about 100% with Herb's blog does not mean that I believe science proves SDA Creation theory.
Nate says: “Until those who question the Ptolemaic theory of evolution find retrospectoscopes to peer into deep history, and produce incontrovertible evidence refuting evolutionary theory, 21st Century astrologers will continue to consider evolutionary models settled science.” The “Ptolemaic theory of evolution” and “21st Century astrologers” phrases are priceless. Well done! My scoring of this sentiment: 10 out of 10 for great rhetorical skill, 0 out of 10 for meaningful logical argument.
But Nathan, is it so wrong to challenge those who reject Einsteins theory on time and space on the grounds that noone knows where the first blob of matter in the big bang came from, and ask these critics if they might produce arguments which are a little bit closer to the time-space question? Certainly the question of where the stars came from is an interesting one, but can it really be said that the answer to this question is foundational for how they interact once here? Would the concept of gravity wells crumble and fall if the matteria came about through the command of God rather than through being teleported from a pararell universe? Highly unlikely.
I should note that Herb is propably innocent in putting up the argument in this way, that he have retold it the same way it he first read it.
Would it be such a bad thing if arguments against evolution actually dealt with evolution rather than with abiogenesis? Im just asking..
I really appreciate all these contributions but I was really hoping for someone to help me with my three questions:1) why, despite the extensive research undertaken by countless dedicated scientist, we have not found a single transitional form in the fossil record; (2) why are school children presented, for many decades, the latest drama of how apes become a man (think about the TIME bombshell in 1999, which supposedly presented man's oldest ancestor) and think the Neanderthal Man. Lucy, Nebraska man, etc. None of these famous "discoveries" stood the test challenging the proverb that the end justifies the means. (3) why don't biologists everywhere simply tell the world that it is absolutely impossible, even given time, for life to evolve from that first cell, which exists only if the complexity of its components were in place before it is even a cell. We call it the irreducible minimum. (4) and we could add the complexity of the egg that needs a chicken before there is an egg. Just thinking about the egg opens up the marvel of creation, especially its "magical" shell with its 10,000 pores providing oxygen, etc.
No, I am not a scientist but that obvious fact does not prevent me from asking logical questions. Is there anybody who wants to help me answer these questions. The same procedure should be put to every theologian as to what cult of experts he belongs to and what exactly is the basis for his beliefs in anything. Cheers, Herb
Herb's four questions strongly suggests to me that this line of discussion is going to go down hill quickly and end is very unpleasant ways. Herb as a fine Christian gentleman and anything that I say from now on about his lack of current grasp of relevant scientific understandings would not be positive. Herb–let's just leave it here and agree to disagree on these matters.
Very cute, Erv. And don't think I am unappreciative of the zero. Had you magnanimously given me a 2 or 3 for logic, I would have been forced to concede that perhaps you are not quite the fundamentalist you sometimes seem to be. But as a conservative, it is reassuring for me to see that some things do not change – that fundamentalists are firmly holding down both ends in the Adventist dialectic; and that there is indeed a faithful remnant in the land of Darwin guarding faith from the acids of doubt.
And Thomas, I much appreciate your thoughts and questions on this thread. I do not believe that the Genesis accounts should be read as literal descriptions of actual physical processes chronologically taking place in time as we understand it. So yes, to my way of thinking, the only valid arguments against evolution are those that deal with the inferences that can and should be drawn from the science and math, many of which raise serious doubt about the adequacy and accuracy of evolutionary models to explain what they claim to understand. Whether the dividing line between abiogenesis and evolutionary thinking is so clear as you seem to imply is well above my pay grade.
These arguments and doubts about how much evolutionary science can really know bend us back towards metaphysics, though certainly not the rationalist a priori of traditional Adventist thought. The challenge of faith is to act on the belief, while accepting the evidence of science, that the stories of Genesis and the Bible yield more accurate and adequate information about the nature of man and the nature of ultimate reality than the stories of science. The challenge of science is to remain humble and pure to its methods, and to resist the temptations of money, power, and authority that come with service to academic, political, psychosocial, or religious agendas.
If you watch the entire documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNGeXjpL1Hg&NR=1 you will find answers given in an accessible manner.
Addressing Herbs Questions:
1) Here is a list of transitional fossils: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
2) It seems that apes have only evolved into straw men. The theory of evolution does not say that man evolved from apes but from a common ancestor that evolved not only into apes but also into man.
3) Biologists don’t “simply tell the world that it is absolutely impossible, even given time, for life to evolve from that first cell.” because it has not been shown to be impossible.
4) Eggs are marvelous; I had a magical omelet for breakfast. The idea of irreducible complexity is warmed over God of the Gaps. When the gaps are filled what do you have?
Roscoe and Herb
The 'fossil transitions' are in transitioning out of the darwinian world into the simple sub-specian.
Some do speak honestly about the fossils. David Raup of the Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago has stated, "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found. Yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832, 1981
And, Richard Lewontin, Prof. of Zoology, Harvard, "Look, I'm a person who says in this book [Human Diversity, 1982 that we don't know anything about the ancestors of the human species. All the fossils which have been dug up and are claimed to be ancestors we haven't the faintest idea whether they are ancestors. ….All you've got is Homo sapiens there, you've got that fossil there, you've got another fossil there…and it's up to you to draw the lines. Because there are no lines.", Harpers, 2/84
Irreducible complexity is not a 'god of the gaps;' it is positive evidence of design and intelligence. Many researchers are open about this fact:
" 'Survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection.' No matter what phraseology one generates, the basic fact remains the same: any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides (in the DNA). Nature or species do not have the capacity for rearranging them, nor adding to them. Consequently no leap (saltation) can occur from one species to another. The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence: one who knows what it is doing, such as our genetic engineers are now performing in their laboratories." (Cohen, I.L., Mathemetician & Researcher, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences, (1984), Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities, New York: NW Research Publications, Inc., p. 209)
"There is no agreement on the extent to which metabolism could develop independently of a genetic material. In my opinion, there is no basis in known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can organize spontaneously — and every reason to believe that they cannot. The problem of achieving sufficient specificity, whether in aqueous solution or on the surface of a mineral, is so severe that the chance of closing a cycle of reactions as complex as the reverse citric acid cycle, for example, is negligible."
(Orgel, Leslie, "The origin of life — a review of facts and speculations," Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 23 (Dec 1998): 491-495. pp. 494-495)
But it all goes back to who created the Intelligent Designer? Who was the First Cause? This is a philosophical Mobius strip.
"A philosphical Mobius strip'….well said!
God (or Intelligent Designer) of the Gaps
The Argument:
1. There is a gap in scientific knowledge. [e.g. a complexity has not been explained]
2. The gap is filled with an act of God (or an intelligent designer) and therefore the existence of God (or intelligent designer) is proven. [Del Ratzsch, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2005).]
"…how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.” [Dietrich Bonhoeffer, letter to Eberhard Bethge, 29 May 1944]
The quotation from Bonhoeffer quoted by Roscoe Fogg is right on target and the weakness of both the God-of-the-Gaps and Intelligent Designer arguments is well stated. I don't know of a better type of response.
There is a cartoon of two white-coated older professors explaining a complicated formula, filling an entire blackboard, but then one stops and says:
"And then, a miracle happens."
This captures the essence of creationist debates.
Isn't it remarkable how defensive the doubters become when others raise doubts about the metanarrative by which they (the doubters) seek to invalidate competing metanarratives? Why are those who worship at the shrine of doubt in the realm of religion so resistant to those who raise doubt about the adequacy of naturalistic faith?
Any who claim for certitude should be doubted.
One does not need to explain the origin of the intelligence to detect intelligence. This is a typical false
syllogism. The resulting 'infinite regress' must obviously stop somewhere and this would, by definition, be
'eternal.'
Well…well, faith does indeed have some strange bedfellows. Can I throw in the secular state as well, in the same bed with the atheists, agnostics and hoo-ha evolutionists? Dr Taylor mentions ‘evilutionists’[sic]. I think his usage of such a term is quite appropriate. (I’ll give you ten out of ten, for that one, Sir). The God Who reveals Himself in the Holy Bible as the Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent One, is the Creator of all things visible and invisible and makes absolutely no reference whatsoever to any evolutionary process occurring with regards to our origins and existence. If such sophistry didn’t come from Him then it can only be from the great deceiver, the ‘evil’ one: satan himself. Can I include satan as an additional strange bedfellow too?
Who would have thought that the 21st century scientific community in cahoots with secular society would so quickly choose to forget that Western science as we know it was motivated and spurred on by a direct result of a deep interest and admiration of what God has created and how marvelously our world and universe is all put together? So it seems that ‘evilution’ [sic] is nothing other than a philosophical sub-culture masquerading as legitimate science which has been given pole position by a secular godless culture propped up by its equally godless legislature which I might add, adds yet another ‘strange’ bedfellow in this dodgy philosophical romp with faith.
“The philosophy of science can be divided into two broad areas: the epistemology of science and the metaphysics of science. The epistemology of science discusses the justification and objectivity of scientific knowledge. The metaphysics of science discusses philosophically puzzling aspects of the reality uncovered by science.” [p809 the Oxford companion to Philosophy] So how can we conveniently exclude the ‘metaphysical’ from the reality of the mega philosophy found in stuff like scientific method etc., which, even the hard core empirical sciences AND the dodgy pseudo kind have put their faith in? That’s why they’re all bedfellows with faith. Strange!
T
Who needs to study science when the Bible has all the answers?
It sure did help me care for my slaves, and sell my daughter!
I was privileged to meet Denis Alexander, Director of the Faraday Institute at Cambridge University, earlier this week. Google it. Denis was giving a lecture on reconciling science and faith. One observation that stuck with me was that in the UK, science faculty were more likely to believe in a God than the arts faculty. Broadly speaking, science asks the how questions, whereas theology asks the why questions. And both are needed.
In Alexander's writings, four different models have been posited for relating science and religion. In order, these were:
The conflict model – science and religion are in irreconciliable conflict.
The NOMA model – (Non-Overlapping Magisteria). Each has something to say in their own realms, but have nothing to add to the other.
The Fusion Model – this tends to blur the distinction between scientific types of knowledge, or attempts to utilise science in order to construct religious systems of thought or vice versa.
The complementarity model – essentially maintains that science and religion are addressing the same reality from different perspectives.
All food for thought. I wonder which models the contributors subscribe to.
I defintely favour the fourth option. If science and religion are operating in the same real world, then they are ultimately addressing the same reality. To rule theology out of the attempt to understand the real world is to declare that the Bible is merely myth. And if both address the same reality, then it is equally wrong to rule science and other forms of human knowledge out of place in trying to understand the Bible.
There appears to be little difference between the NOMA and the complementarity model. Tell us your perspective.
The irony in all of this perhaps, is the hypocrisy of the West in the way it has mustered a significant war mongering effort against the faith of Atheist Communism yet unabashedly has aided and abetted the Atheist Capitalism faith right in its own back yard. That is perhaps also one very BIG reason why so many in the West have progressed their way AWAY from God; true faith; and obedience. Evolution theory has made them Atheists for crying out loud and has turned Western society into a Godless unbelieving bunch of alternative 'faith' practitioners. Blinded and intoxicated by the doctrine of evolution right from their formative years, they mature after been insidiously force fed all this ungodly hoo-hah which is faithfully preached from their iconoclastic pulpits: or should I say beds?
To those (a remnant perhaps?) who still celebrate the memorial of Creation: ☺Happy Sabbath ♫♪♥!
T
Science is many things to many people. To some, it is a "body of knowledge." To others, it is an assembly of laws, and theories, and hypotheses. Some consider it dogma. Apparently some regard it as a false religion. And perhaps it IS a religion to some. Perhaps to many. I have always taught my students to use science as a method of improving understanding of the world. I see science a method of gaining knowledge. And I mean by that, objective evidence. But I also stress that knowledge must be held very gently–what evidence we have now might not hold up under further examination. When we write a scientific paper, we write an introduction in which we review some of the relevant evidence previously found. Then we describe the methods we used for the study to be reported. This is so anyone else anywhere can attempt to replicate what we did. Then we report our results, along with some statistical analyses to place them in perspective and give some idea of how confident we can be of the objective evidence obtained. Then we write a discussion of what we think the results mean, and a summary or list of conclusions follows, along with acknowledhements and references. Each part of a scientific paper has its place. Some scientists are very confident of the arguments they make about what their evidence means. Others understate the possible significance of their data. Professional scientists must learn to read critically and be open to new information that can require them to revise what they thought they knew. In this sense, science is a dynamic epistemological machine that defies dogma. Even so, many scientists, being people, go far beyond the objective evidence they have and make statements about things about which they have little knowledge or expertise. Their hubris feeds the notion of science as religion, and that is kind of sad. But the scientific process discovers evidence that requires intellectual flexibility. One can only examine the fossil record so much, or examine comparative genomics so much, until one can no longer believe in young earth creation. One can often argue that a fossil is not exactly 2.3 million years old as a scientist may have asserted, but to assert instead that all fossils are frauds, oh my! Or that science is just a matter of belief, like any religion. How can anyone be that ignorant? Yes, IGNORANT!
What we need to be teaching children is how to think critically and how to evaluate evidence. We do need to be teaching them to seek truth, wherever that leads–not to make up the answers in advance or accept some set of answers without question. That would be true education. So, don't just accept a scientist's conclusions, examine his data. Don't just uncritically follow your doctor's orders–learn about disorders and their causes and about the effectiveness of various therapeutic approaches. Don't be a "Darwinist" or "Mendelian." Smart people can say smart things, but they can also make mistakes. Learn to evaluate evidence. Learn how to discover or create knowledge. Wonder about what objective evidence means. Revise your opinions on the basis of new evidence. Do not depend on the opinions of authorities. Become an authority yourself–and do not take yourself too seriously. Being an authority often means knowing enough to say "I don't know" or even, "I doubt that anyone knows." Darwin assembled a lot of interesting information that did not seem to him to be consistent with what everyone thought they knew. He called into question accepted ideas. He and Wallace proposed natural selection as a mechanism by which biological change could occur. Neither of them knew much about the real mechanisms of biological inheritance. But the more one knows about genetics and genomics, the better one can see how biological change occurs. Don't take my word for it. Just open your mind and examine the evidence. Or, make up your mind about how things are in advance and decide to ignore the massive amount of evidence. Decide to be ignorant. Celebrate your ignorance. Nice seeing you again, Elaine and Erv. I'm afraid you are wasting your time talking with those who are deeply committed to ignorance.
Some observations:
Truth: The correspondence theory of truth involves a mapping between a domain of interest and some sentences in a language. Reasoning within the language when using truth preserving rules of deduction, results in true conclusions. Both science and religion employ rules of inference which are not truth preserving. Science attempts to construct universal statements from a limited set of particular facts. Consequently it should be expected that scientific theories change with additional observations.
The coherence theory of truth expects a collection of sentences to have an internal logic that satisfies some desired criteria — a work of fiction need have no relationship to the natural world.
Theory: There are several kinds of theories. An explanatory theory offers an explanation. Genesis offers a number of explanations of things we see in the natural world and in society. Predictive theories are valued by engineers. These theories enable the construction of useful objects. Heuristic theories spark our imagination and stimulate research.
Evolution and YEC: YEC offers an explanation. Evolutionary theory supplies explanation, prediction, and heuristics. Medications are available which are derived from evolutionary theory. Electrical engineers produce chips which are developed using genetic and evolutionary algorithms.
Pragmatism: I would like to hear about consumer or industrial level products which have been produced using YEC. It appears to me that the debate between YEC and Evolution has yet to produce anything of practical value. Perhaps there is a better use for the resources that have been devoted to the debate.
Interesting points, Anthony. While I don't believe in YEC as science, I don't believe in straw men either. I seriously doubt that any YEC advocates question evolution as a biological reality, or the validity of algorithms developed to test evolutionary hypotheses. Rather, they question the closed systems and presumed constants of the evolutionary worldview. One need not believe that life on earth evolved through natural selection and random mutation over billions of years in order to accept the scientific and mathematical models used by many disciplines other than evolutionary biology.
I think you utilize a narrow and biased concept of YEC theory to deny its predictive and heuristic value, though I would certainly agree that YEC is not science, and therefore it's predictive value is qualitatively different from the predictive value of say genetics, which I assume you mean to include within the "evolutionary theory" rubric.
Of course neither YEC nor evolution per se produce anything. But one could make a compelling argument that the foundations of modern science were built upon the thought, discoveries, and creations of people who believed in the God of scripture; people who believed that His creation was orderly; and people who believed that the secrets of His universe could be discovered and known through diligent study and application of logic and reason. So in a very real way, the giants on whose shoulders evolutionary theorists stand were YEC believers.
It seems to me that the relative contributions of an evolutionary worldview versus a YEC worldview to the products of the age of science, the industrial age, and the age of technology cannot be clearly defined, as their roots are inextricably intertwined.
Someone on here mentioned a "young earth." I don't think many Adventists who have studied it believe in a young earth (6,000 years). This is a fundamentalist stance. I found an article in an old Review from the late 1800s addressing this, and the author promoted an earth already in existence as in Gen. 1 before the creation week began.
Is it possible that the creation story that was handed down without a written language (not needed in earth's earlier days) from the beginning was not exactly as it happened? This does not mean that the seven days had no significance. My question: Is the obsession with making the story so literal a distraction from its divine meaning? Are we trying to force it to fit into the modern idea of "science?" It obviously can't with its two versions and the problem with light, stars, and sun on different days.
This does not mean that the fall never happened. Of course, it did and brought with it death; otherwise selfish and wicked humans would destroy all communication with heaven and turn earth into hell and finally destroy it. For those who don't believe in human-caused environmental change, read your Bibles!
Because modern scientists will not go where the evidence leads and many Bible believers are inflexible,
I see little chance of either jumping out of their boxes. Someone would need to turn their boxes upside down. I am not a scientist; just a simple person. But I can't believe my computer evolved–that just doesn't seem scientific to me!
To show what creationists are up against, take a look at the following. Evolutionists do think they have found the "missing link." http://www.npr.org/2011/09/08/140294922/mosaic-fossil-could-be-bridge-from-apes-to-humans
Nicely stated, Ella. However, we must not overlook the mystery, profundity, symbolism, and poetic symmetry of the Genesis stories that confirm their transcendent provenance. It is not only possible, but quite certain, at least in my mind, that the Genesis stories do not reflect a literal chronology. But it is much much more than an oral tradition.
Where does the evidence lead, if I may ask?
Make that SOME "evolutionists." Others evalute the evidence and reach different conclusions. Modern scientists who do not follow where the evidence leads are not using scientific method. Here's a thought. Things that work, continue to exist and develop. Things that don't work, or work less well, are discarded or fall into disuse. Competent modern scientists MUST go where the evidence leads. They really have no choice IF they are to survive as scientists. There is, of course, plenty of dogmatism and defensiveness and people who think they have found ultimate truth in science.
How else would science continue to develop if they didn't go "where the evidence leads"? This is EXACTLY how it works.
Nathan, your statement: "the Genesis stories do not reflect a literal chronology. But it is much much more than an oral tradition" needs clarification. How else would Genesis have ever been written had it not been an oral tradition for perhaps several millennia, or much longer? With no literacy at that time (did God teach man to write and all of their scribblings have been lost?), orally telling stories was the only method for transmitting. Can you suggest another method?
I didn't mean to suggest, Elaine, that oral tradition was not incorporated into the Genesis poem. To say something is more than one of its elements is not a repudiation of the element. Not being a student of Hebrew language or culture, I must rely on those who are to understand the grandeur, beauty, and profundity of the creation story, particular that of Genesis 1. I don't believe that rational humans on their own could or did come up with the substance and symbolic ordering of creation?
Tracking the human origins of the Creation stories is a highly speculative undertaking. Accepting it as divine revelation of truth is an a priori act of faith that rings far truer to me than the science of evolution, which tells me nothing about the character of God or the essence of what it means to be human.
I would hope that reasonable and well-informed adventists would reject the 6000 year-old notion; however, unless I am mistaken, that is the affirmed and absolute position of the church–maybe even a requirement to be a member of the church as a "test of faith."
I probably should not just drop into your blog a few times every couple of years and then just return to my regular life. Even so, that is what I do. And when I do, I see all sorts of fundamentally false and misleading assertions regarding science and scientists and evolution–mostly by people who really seem to have no understanding at all of what science is, how science works, or what evolution is. I have no idea why this amazes me so much. The reasoning is the same as it was among many of the people I met at PUC more than 50 years ago. So, I generally provide some brief and pedantic description of what science is and how it works. Here goes again, briefly. (1) the basis of science is the observation and description of something, e.g., an artifact or a pattern of behavior–something objectively real that can be described. (2) some falsifiable questions are asked and hypotheses are formed; (3) more observations are made, usually systematically, sometimes within a research design; (4) hypotheses are revised in accordance with additional evidence (that is, mainly, aspects of guesses about what was observed and why are found to be false and are discarded; or, if they are not falsified, the failure to falsify them leaves them as possible answers); (5) this process continues, over and over, and knowledge is gained and refined. As hypotheses survive much examination, confidence in them increases. Some gain the status of "theories," or even "laws," depending on how durable and comprehensive they are–but they are always subject to revision based on new evidence. Reliance on "authority" does not get one very far in science. And yet, the way nonscientists use scientific information is often totally inappropriate. They are always expecting scientists to PROVE something to them. What science is good at, though, is the opposite–that is, rejecting hypotheses. Falsifying assertions, hypotheses, inaccurate aspects of theories, etc. Scientific knowledge is not the comforting kind of knowledge that is provided by religions that generate "knowledge" by assertion, and "facts" assembled from "authoritative" sources. Okay. I've said enough. Too much, no doubt. I do wish you all well. Please be kind and decent to each other, and don't spend too much time or energy intellectualizing about things that are of absolutely no consequence. Be a little sensitive to the complexity of the rationalizations you must make in order to resolve the dissonance between what you know from your tradition (SDA or whatever) and the objective evidence that exists. Live and be well. Love & Peace, Joe (agingapes AT gmail DOT com)
What you describe about how science works, Joe, would, I suspect strike even fundamentalists as quite a good summary. I think the false and misleading assertions come from both sides of the faith-science divide. Each attempts to exercise dogmatic hegemony over a larger realm that its epistemological methods permit. Both make generalizations about the other that are probably more untrue than true, but nevertheless form helpful shorthand ways to describe positions and advance arguments.
Much of the work of truth seekers involves exposing fallacies and clarifying concepts that are spun and distorted to advance Truth claims that reveal only partial truth, becoming falsehoods when they are promoted as Truth. Those who seek truth generally spend far more time clearing away falsehood than actually discovering truth, most of which has already been discovered, at least in the moral realm. Most of the Truth claims of science fall into step (5) of the process you describe, and when they achieve consensus, usually in service to some religious or political agenda, they are very resistant to criticism or revision.
Look, friends, I am grateful for everyone's contributions. It shows what happens when anyone starts out, consciously or unconciously, from his own imprinted world view (assumptions). It helps when anyone simply states his/her philosophical "home." But it seems so hard to do. For anyone! And then state hissimple logical reasons, etc. I think no one has disputed Darrel's appeal to recognized scientists on those questions I asked earlier. In fact, I went to Wikipedia on "transitional" fossils and this is what I read:
These are the same words of caution that Darrel's specialists above were urging. And Darwin said about the same thing in his Origin, But this kind of caution is not heard by high school and college students or by excited journalists.
It may be that real discussion here can only proceed with each one admitting the basis for his faith out of which he/she forms his/her "facts." I will state mine first: Reality made its hardest hit when Jesus was resurrected–that surely pierced the curtain between the world as we know it and the world yet to be more perfectly known. Studying who this Jesus was and is, for me, seems to be the most important subject that human beings can pursue. Everything flows out from here, even back to Genesis–but in that order. Does this make any sense? Cheers, Herb
Herb, Wikipedia writes these warnings when it wish to show that not enough support has been attached to their article. It does not mean that the citations do not exist. Otherwise the same caution you show here against transitional fossils must be used towards the Sabbath, which also has a note of warning regarding citations on Wikipedia. This time it says:
"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may bechallenged and removed. (January 2011)"
Surely you will not take this warning provided by the Wikipedia editors as a cause to deplore the lack of caution heard from pulpits and AR journalists regarding the Sabbath?
As for the basis for my faith, I agree with you. It has its centre in the person of Jesus and the event of the ressurrection. The bible is the story of how God has sought a relationship with humans, and how He has worked towards finding men willing to be made in His image. Anyone reading the prophets will quickly see that this has not been an easy task.
"Everything flows out from here, even back to Genesis–but in that order. Does this make any sense?"
Yes, it makes very good sense to the believer.
The one most important word in all these discussions is "believer." One is either a believer, or one chooses to rely on evidence. They are seldom in harmony. Even the Resurrection is on the basis of "belief" and while it is the most essential doctrine of Christianity, it is based solely on belief; otherwise, it would be an accepted fact.
We can all state our beliefs but they must first be stated so that anything following that will be read and interepreted through that lens. Adventists are "believers" but most of the particular, even peculiar beliefs are not shared with the majority of Christianity. This is the reason that for most of its history, Adventism has looked for new converts from existing Christians: Christians who are largely ignorant of the Bible and are a fertile field for converts as Adventists do have a superior knowledge of the Bible, and especially in quoting texts to prove those particular beliefs while prospective converts are not able to refute by their lack of Bible knowledge.
Dear Elaine, Old Friend : Please, tell me what you do "believe with all your heart." Cheers, Herb
Herb, I believe in the simple goodness of people and have found that if you expect the best of people you will usually find it. Most people find what they are looking for. There are far more good people in this world and fewer evil, although we may occasionally run into them.
I believe that the way we treat people is far more important than any possible doctrinal positions and that we often fight over the latter but seldom the former. I believe that Christ's great commandment is Love and we should demonstrate that by our lives; few care about our private beliefs. I also believe that all those who have tried to be kind to their neighbors and been compassionate to those in need will find homes in heaven if that is the final destination for all.
Everything else that is argued and discussed, and Adventists have much to disagree as they have so many doctrinal positions, that all 28 FB can be thrown out and your neighbor, your co-worker, your casual acquaintance will neither know nor care, but they will be concerned how you treat the less fortunate among us.
That's all I can find worthy of believing. If there is more, it was forgotten as being non-essential.
The humanist approach is admirable, noteworthy and even a viable option at times; but it does NOT and CANNOT remedy the problem of SIN (NEITHER CAN SCIENCE for that matter). We are ALL SIN Positive which is our true condition and only, only Jesus provides the healing balm for this terrible malady. Can I say this without sounding rhetorical? There is power in the Blood of Jesus Christ. This is a fact. Millions throughout the ages, before and after the cross have had the opportunity to be covered by His Blood, through His Grace and Mercy. By faith this Salvation becomes a tangible experiencial priviledge, thanks to HIM of course. Evolution faith and empirical science makes NO provision whatsoever for Sin: the Bible does; and reveals this plan of Salvation which has been tried and tested and evidently a reality we can embrace. A PERSONAL God is revealed in Christ Jesus – and can I say this too: HE IS GOD!
T
Yes, the beliefs that I personally submitted does not mention sin, nor any religion. Sin is a many-worded thing and all religions have their own set of sins which their particular deity has prohibited. There are millions who are uncommitted to any particular belief and if it's humanism, then it embodies the command to treat everyone as you would like to be treated, and to love your neighbor as yourself, which are basically the same motif.
What you believe; what anyone else believes is their personal position but those that I listed are basic to all peoples everywhere and at all times. As Rabbi Hillel said when asked to quote the entire Torah while standing on one foot, simply repeated the Golden Rule and added "all the rest is commentary–and I can add nothing more.
The problem here is the existence of sin and evil that are much more widespread than you are admitting. Actually most people are selfish (maybe this is the original sin)–I would say all people. Such people cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. If they did the same thing would start all over again. By assuming all people are good is flying in the face of facts. Sure some may be polite and born to good families and raised well, but they are still selfish. Others may be downright wicked and serial killers and unable to think beyond their passions. All will have had a turning point to accept or reject the Spirit.
The only way of salvation is through Jesus Christ who died "before the foundation of the world" that all may be saved. There is no time factor with God, He provided for us before we were born. But we must choose (not reject) His love that comes through the Holy Spirit that pervades the earth and battles the forces of evil.
TRUE. Nice post.
I view evolution, especially in light of genetics, to be nothing more than the hocus-pocus of modern science. It'sd modern flat-earth science.
If we evolved from a single cell, then why is tghere beauty in nature and why do we have the senses to observe that beauty?
And where is the anti-matter in the universe? And one could go on & on & on. Christianity and
evolution are incompatible and today there are scientific answers to challenge evolution.
JaNe,
Would an explaination of the matter/anti-matter inbalance in the universe really matter to you?
Roscoe, your question: "Would an explanation of the matter/anti-matter….really matter" is most appropriate: one must first understand the question to begin to understand the answer.
Along with Elaine, I share a great curosity about the use of the word "believer." Simple question: "Believer" in what? Magic? The Flying Spagetti Monster? String theory? The appearance of the Virgin Mary at Lourdes?
"Believer" is one of the most over-used and meaningless words in Adventism. Would someone care to define it? Or is it simply each person's subjective evaluation?
If speaking of Creation: Who refuses to acknowledge we live in a world of wonder and beauty? Does the "correct" explanation of this creation demand either a "believer" or "non-believer" status? Who cares what other's believe? Personally, I only care how they treat other humans (animals, also).
Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Rom 4:3 For what doth the Scripture say? And Abraham believed in God, and it was reckoned unto him as righteousness.
I like this definition below which to an ‘unbeliever’ may not be fully comprehended and therefore misunderstood:
G4100 (Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries)
G4100 πιστεύω pisteuo (pist-yoo'-o) v.
1. to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit
2. (by implication) to entrust (especially one's spiritual well-being to Christ)
[from G4102] KJV: believe(-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with Root(s): G4102
——
This ain't 'pie in the sky' belief/believe/believer as suggested by Mrs. Nelson in terms of 'overuse' and 'meaningless'. In fact, in the context of the Laodicean Church, one may find that there is a LACK of true believers, rather than ‘overuse’, hence the admonition and subsequent counsel. It is therefore my opinion that 'believer' won't just be limited to a 'subjective evaluation' only, especially when the object of our belief is God in Christ Jesus. Hey, I'm a 'believer', subjective; objective; emotive; whatever! Faith in God makes this a tangible experience and a living reality (for believers of course). PS.- Skeptics and doubters by default won’t/can’t fall into the ‘Christian believers’ category which they by their own choice have chosen to ‘disbelieve’.
T
As it is often the case there are some difficulties here I see with Mrs. Nelson's post:
Mrs. Nelson quotes Mr. Douglass: ''Everything flows out from here, even back to Genesis–but in that order. Does this make any sense?"
Mrs. Nelson then adds: '' Yes, it makes very good sense to the believer.'' A later post after that Mrs. Nelson talks a bit about 'Believer' and 'relying on evidence' and then (just a post before this comment of mine) She declares and adds : ''Believer" is one of the most over-used and meaningless words in Adventism. Would someone care to define it? Or is it simply each person's subjective evaluation?''……..Madam sometimes it is difficult to understand what are you trying to say and put forth, going right and then left coming back to right and then sides and so on…… One reason I believe in reading and posting in AT is to take and show our stands and opinions (There might be many reason though) but at times it is difficult to respond to your concerns as to what you want to know….sometime you look like you know a lot about the issue you are talking about and some other time you seem to be just writing for the shake of writing as you are also one of the most engaged person here in AT when it comes to posting comments, Oh you are there in Spectrum too (No offense).
Mr. Douglass I guess has been very straight when he asked you: ''Dear Elaine, Old Friend : Please, tell me what you do believe with all your heart." I think he is also asking you not only in the context of that immediate post rather his question to you was related to his overall article/blog (this)….Please don't call me mind reader (lol) like the otherday a friend here in the blog was stating how initially he was labled as not understanding anything and later declared to be a mind reader……funny things do exist a lot in this world of ours……
By the way Mr. Douglass sincerely ackowledges : ''Studying who this Jesus was and is, for me, seems to be the most important subject that human beings can pursue. Everything flows out from here, even back to Genesis''
Yes, indeed everything flows from JESUS…..In HIM WAS LIFE AND THAT LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN'……God indeed reconciles the World in CHRIST. If people have problem with EGW, 6DC (Genesis account) and even the SDAs that can be understood but if they say they have problem with the Biblical explaination just because the God of the Bible and His workings didn't fit into their Seminary and universities degree studies or lets say even the non-Adventist beliefs they sport for that matter then nomatter how loud they trumpet they believe in God and goodness of all men etc.they are bound to fall in the pride of their academic and so-so achievements etc. I believe it is difficult for some people to accept the comments that some SDA brethrens post in here not because they don't agree with them but rather they feel they are the only ones with the right understanding which most of the times they love blaming on those SDA commentators (again a mind reader, lol).
Moving onto Mr. Taylor's post, He asks: ''Simple question: "Believer" in what? Magic? The Flying Spagetti Monster? String theory? The appearance of the Virgin Mary at Lourdes?
Answer: That's your personal choice Sir as to chose what you want to believe………need I say more
Somewhere here Mrs. Nelson even talks of throwing the 28FBs to the dustbin but then my concern is how do you tell people what you believe and why are you a different people, what stands you have (the list goes on) and moreover don't you think in an age like ours that we need them more often however the fact that SDA is more than 28FBs rather it's a movement to take the evrlasting gospel to the farthest ends of the earth is as alear as crystal I guess but it is still not suffice a reason to throw 28FBs. other day a person after hearing a word on sabbath Asked me 'Why you guys emphasize so much on 1 and forget the nine' I replied 'no we haven't forgotten the other nine but others have forgotten the one we are talking about hence the need to speak beautiful truths that often sounds bitter to most may be..' there is so much to write but then in my country they say 'You can wake the person who is really asleep but you can't who is pretending to be asleep'…….folks I am ready for getting some backfiring atleast on the last two lines but that's fine…..good day
How does evolution explain the fact that humans are the only species who wear clothes? Why did we not just evolve thicker skin or hair or fur to deal with colder climates?
Second, how does evolution explain the fact that every society on earth considers it improper to discard all clothing in public? Why is it improper to live fully nude in public when the climate will allow it? Every culture whether christian or non christian follows this practice. Why?
Actually, there have been societies where going without clothes is totally proper. The Tierra Del Fuagans and Australian Aboriginals are two that come to mind. Nudity in various situations was considered acceptable in a number of cultures before contact with Western culture. I share your scepticism of evolution, but arguments need ot be made on accurate facts.
Kevin, thank you. Please clarify whether these examples you gave lived totally without any covering such as loin cloths. I am not familiar with societies like that but I am will to be corrected. However, you did not comment on my main point: Why are humans the only specieis that did not evolve thicker skin or hair or fur to deal with different climates?
There was nowhere in Australia where clothes were worn habitually. Skin cloaks were worn in winter – where it exists – but loincloths etc, were not worn. Any strings of bead or fur that were worn were purely decorative. It was, however, possible to be either decently naked or indecently naked. The Yaghan of Tierra del Fuego also went completely naked when first encountered.
I am not sure there is an answer to your quetion, except the obvious answer that humans don't evolve in that way. As I don't really believe in evolution as a theory of origins, I will leave it to someone who does to give an answer.
Dr. Newman asks simple questions that go along with several that I have raised after reading some of the most recognized scholars in their various fields: Why has not someone somewhere ever produced a specie in transition, either a half man or a half horse, etc.? Or, how can a cell of whatever nature be found with only half of the ingredients needed to exist? How could even a cell with all of its more than 200 of its ingredients ever just happen, on the basis of just evolving into a full cell? How come the most skilled mathematicians have tried to figure out how many zillions of years it would take to get all the stuff within one cell to come together at one time? BTW, what are the chances of one cell, or collection of cells, figuring out that to increase that had to be sexually mated? How does that work? You can see what the editor of Adventist Today did to my brain? Cheers, Herb
My Adventist Today colleague asked “How does evolution explain the fact that humans are the only species who wear clothes?” What a fascinating question for an Adventist blog! I will be happy to offer a point of view from an anthropological perspective if my Adventist Today colleague would promise to tell me his opinion on this topic from what I assume is a theological perspective. I am very curious to know why he asked and what view he has of this topic. Fair enough?
First, a clarification: There seems to be a need to make sure that we are using the word “evolution” in the same context.
If my AT colleague is using “evolution” as “biological evolution,” then the question is being asked in that context and an answer should respond from a biological perspective. Perhaps that question is related to the one which asked why humans are the only species that did not evolve thicker skin or hair or fur to deal with different climates. The fact is that our species has evolved a number of genetically-mediated externally observable physical features that did respond to environmental variables. The best known is the amount of melanin in the skin of some human groups. This is almost certainly an evolutionary biological response to increased amount of skin exposure to the intensity of sunlight. On the other hand, there is the possibility that all early Homo sapiens had dark sign pigmentation and that other human sub-groups lost that pigmentation with time as they moved out of Africa (see below). Some other examples which are explained in most physical anthropology textbooks would include the loss in genus Homo of the gene which expresses a sagittal crest at the top of the skull and another gene that controls the size the size of the jaw creating the characteristic chin structure of anatomically modern Homo.
On the other hand, if “evolution” here means “cultural evolution,” then certainly that is an understandable question. Unless one believes in some type of genetic component, the wearing or not wearing of clothing is entirely a cultural issue, i.e., an idea or concept held in common by the members of a given human society. There is obviously a general correlation between the mean annual temperature of an environment and the amount of clothing that is considered appropriate. But there are certainly exceptions to this generalization.
I assume that the question is a little more basic. Why body coverings of any kind at all? It is a fact that the human species is the only one where almost all of its members habitually cover parts of their bodies with some type of material. Kevin already responded that there are certainly a few human groups that do not wear any type of clothing. This is correct, but it is also correct to say that there are a relatively small number of societies where it has been reported that this is the general practice. Almost all human societies do indeed wear some type of covering.
From an anthropological perspective, this question is related to some degree with the observation that, in contrast to other primates, humans have lost most of their body hair. The question is why? There is a lot of speculation on this point. One suggestion is that the migration of Homo sapiens out of Africa, which is roughly dated to 100,000 years ago, is associated with both the loss of hair and the need to acquire some type of clothing since average temperatures as populations move northwards tends to decrease. There may be some connection to the loss of pigmentation mentioned earlier. There are also those who argue that human language behavior begins to appear about the same time. We know that human burials begin to appear in the archaeological record at about that time as well. Perhaps all of these changes are linked together, occurred at roughly the same time, and reinforced each other in a complex manner. But direct archaeological evidence is very hard to come by.
My reading of the ethnographic literature suggests that the most widespread taboo among human groups required a covering of the genitals. There are (or were up to relatively recent contact times) a number of hunting and gathering societies in topical environments that wore nothing else than such a covering. The Hebrew creation narrative about Adam and Eve brings that point up in the interesting question of “Who told you that you were naked?” and the fig leaf thing. So we know that even among the ancient Hebrews by the time the Genesis narratives were written down, this taboo was well established and they included an explanation of how it got started in that story.
The acquisition of a natural language system enabled our species to begin to develop all sorts of “ideas” and other abstractions about the nature of the world and about themselves. That is what lies at the center of why the human species is so different from all other species. Taboos about what is permissible and what is not permissible in your little group would then emerge and now could be communicated from generation to generation. The idea that a taboo developed about what part of the body could be exposed and what could not be exposed to certain people is not much of a stretch. Then some type of covering would then be used.
Once the idea of “clothing” was developed, then all kinds of factors would influence how the idea of clothing could be expanded to represent many other kinds of ideas as human societies increased in size and complexity Among the most obvious categories, clothing reflects and signals gender, social status, ideology, and occupation.
That’s one “evolutionary” explanation as to why clothing is unique to human societies and how the taboo about wearing and not wearing clothing originated. Now what is your explanation? .
Fascinating, Erv. Thank you for this perspective. I guess, given all the possibilities, the questions that might be asked are, 1)"Why have any confidence that one or more theories posited by the evolutionary model is surely the answer to David's question?" and 2) "Doesn't your perspective simply lend credence to the contention that much of evolutionary theory has nothing at all to do with science?"
Nate again exhibits his great rhetorical skills with his questions. As for his first question: Why have confidence in one theory as opposed to another? The serious answer is that generally in science the model or theory that explains the largest amount of relevant data with the least number of ad hoc elements is the preferred explanation. As for his second question: The style and form of the question as posed must have worked for him at least once in a court room environment. It doesn't work very well any place else.
My questions, Erv, were not intended to be rhetorical. You begin with an a priori rejection of non naturalistic explanations, which produces a closed system consisting of self-referential, circular reasoning. This indeed makes sense if you are dealing with empirical scientific methodology, which admits to the limitations of its epistemological tools. But attaching the label "science" to rationalistic models that are highly speculative, and calling them "preferred explanations" really puts the genre of science fiction on a solid scientific footing. If you are going that route, surely you would want to invoke Richard Dawkins infamous space aliens as a reasonable possibility for the introduction of clothing to homo sapiens.
My second question was simply an observation that you have conflated reason with science. They are not the same. Your explanations, reasonable and even compelling as they may be, come from the realm of reason and logic, not science. You offer multiple potential theories, excluding those that elude your rational net. In other words, you only entertain as relevant the data that your discipline lets in the door. Similarly, global warming alarmists glommed onto the one element of climate – CO2 – that scientists understood, and concluded, despite their inability to understand 97% of the climate system, that CO2 must be the primary driver of climate change. Scientists with a vested interest in the outcome, particularly paleoclimatologists, proceeded to selectively retrieve the data, cook and "smooth" the data, and then deny legitimacy to their critics, in the end fabricating one of the greatest frauds and cover-ups in the history of science. And I am quite confident that you were one who accepted the scientific consensus built on that fraud as "settled science".
Is it not ironic that, as science and mathematics have over the centuries disproved their own assumptions and theories, demonstrating the unlimited vastness of human ignorance, the one theory that persists as inviolable scientific Truth can neither be proven nor disproven with current empirical tools of science – namely, that life on earth evolved, unguided by any higher intelligence, over a period of hundreds of millions of years. We must, it seems to me, cautiously and humbly continue to rely on the scientific elements of the Ptolemaic theory of evolution until someone comes up with a version of Galileo's telescope to allow us to see the distant past as clearly as he saw the phases of Venus. When that happens, I suspect both the evolutionists and the creationists will be greatly amazed.
Is anthropology therefore defined as just another rhetorical apologetic for the support of evolution?
T
Mr. Hammond has a great potential as a stand-up comic. "Rhetorical apologetic for the support of evolution" That's great. I will have to share that with my colleagues. They will get a kick out of it.
Great to know that the honourable Dr. Taylor's colleagues will get a kick out of my comment. I hope that the evolution theory 'joke' would be kicked out too by them.
☺
T
Erv: Despite your many words you never did answer my question from a scientific point of view. I do not question variation within species and adaptation within species. Micro-evolution is not an issue.
What you did not answer is why mindless evolution would produce humans from whatever pre-humans they came without the ability to survive in their environment as the other creatures could survive.
All other creatures are able to survive in hot or cold climates without the need of external coverings. Let’s forget the other part of my question right now about why current humans feel the need to wear clothes even indoors where the climate is regulated. Let’s stay with the biological or anthropolical issue. Your discussion of pigmentation is beside the point. Most of the time you spent answering the other part of my question.
You did not answer my key point: What evolutionary mechanism would produce the uniqueness of humans when it comes to surviving without external coverings? If evolution is producing the survival of the fittest it would never have produced humans without the fur or hair to survive in hostile conditions. All those not adapted would have died.
Perhaps the most honest answer would be to say: this is one of the mysteries of evolution for which we are still seeking an answer. Because you gave me no answer in your reply.
And as to my answer. You can guess, I am sure, but I do not want to clutter up your answer to my main question with theological issues. Let’s stay on the scientific side of things. I am still trying to understand how evolution could make this unique distinction and what purpose it would serve evolution to evolve a creature that could not survive in its environment. That seems very counter evolution.
In your anwer to Nate you say: “the serious answer is that generally in science the model or theory that explains the largest amount of relevant data with the least number of ad hoc elements is the preferred explanation.” The challenge is that you actually did not present any model and no relevant data. I am still waiting.
J D Newman
you have a good point "tf evolution is producing the survival of the fittest it would never have produced humans without the fur or hair to survive in hostile conditions"
Evr answering your question? good luck… when the kitchen get hot, you are alone my friend. You have a bigger chance to see in person the "pithecantropus erectus", or his cousin the "sasquatch" teaching the next sabbath school.
"Mindless evolution"
To use this prejudiced adjective shows a priori rejection to any answer given. It is not an honest question but a statement of belief.
this link to research conducted by University of Edinburgh which considers that there is an inverse relationship between intelligence and belief in religion.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/religion-and-beliefs/news/article.cfm?c_id=301…
Elaine, are you saying that evolution has a mind?
Perhaps both creationists and evolutionists should remember that neither belief can be shown during the process. This leaves either position to be demonstrated.
Creationists rely on supernatural events; scientists find that a constantly moving and unstable thesis: whenever something cannot be explained the answer is that it was a supernatual event. Scientists are driven to search for answers, creationists already have the answers. Scientists who do not have all the answer, nevertheless continue studying; creations have no need to study, as the answers are all the same: simply read the story in Genesis for the explanation.
Creationism has not changed since the Bible was written, if so, it is because scientific discoveries demonstrated unmistakebly that the interpretation of the Bible was wrong. We know there were ideas believed then that have proved erroneous and many cannot stand up to scrutiny. Science has changed, is always changing, and with new evidence, it may also change the conclusions.
This is how I see the difference.
Would you care to describe the two versions?
Elaine, you tempt me but I must resist. I want to stay with the key question I raised. I notice that you have studiously avoided answering but have added detours. Sometime we need a blog on presuppositions. Herb are you reading? A blog on world views and how we arrive at them would make for a fascinating blog.
It is a waste of both our times when minds are already settled. Carry on.
not kidding…. when was the last time you change your mind?
J D Newman
you have a good point "tf evolution is producing the survival of the fittest it would never have produced humans without the fur or hair to survive in hostile conditions"
Evr answering your question? good luck… when the kitchen get hot, you are alone my friend. You have a bigger chance to see in person the "pithecantropus erectus", or his cousin the "sasquatch" teaching the next sabbath school.
@cb25
I only raised the issue regarding the honourable Dr. Walter Veith whose name was mentioned by you Sir. I was rather surprised at your remarks regarding Dr. Veith as he is a very credible scholar and scientist. I can’t help but think whether you were looking for someone with data to fit your beliefs or some beliefs to fit your data. If that was the case then I can understand why you would react in such an ‘over the edge way’ to the lectures on the media lent to you.
You must remember also that Dr. Veith is not alone in his findings as others also subscribe to much of his research and can reasonably say that he is a very credible scientist and scholar whose findings support the Biblical narrative you have rejected. One thing clear to me from all this discussion within this blog and elsewhere is that evolution and creation CANNOT be conflated as they contradict each other.
Secondly, I have to state, that evolution at its core is contradictory: in that life’s intricate COMPLEX biological systems evidently and unambiguously reveal remarkable intelligence and design, which leave natural selection and ‘chance’ or whatever, left clutching on to major straw-men which is really just over the top dodgy theory and sensationalism. The bottom line is that evolution is contradictory as it has NO basis or rational reasoning for the very EVIDENT phenomena ofintelligent design.
T
Oops – apologies – I posted this on the wrong blog but enjoy! ☺
T
David, if you're asking me "when was the last time you change your mind"? It is constantly changing with new information, and I hope I continue to be better informed by new (to me) information. A static mind contains no new thoughts; a growing mind is open to new thoughts.
Elaine, if you visit my office you will see a framed cartoon on the wall. It pictures a farm wagon with SQUARE
wheels on the anxles and ROUND wheels poking out of the top of the wagon. The man pulling the wagon is saying to the man pushing the wagon: "Harry, just keep pushing. If you would stop asking so many questions we would get there faster." I am actually Harry, I have changed my ideas so many times in my life it makes my head spin sometimes. Here are a few examples: I used to be against drums in church. Now we have drums at my church. I used to be against women's ordination now I am even against men's ordination. I used to be for capital punishment now I am against it. You are absolutely right "a growing mind is open to new thoughts."
The reason I am conservative when it comes to creation is because I have not yet been able to reconcile what science says about origins and what the Bible says about origins when it comes to death. I wonder why God would used death in his creation when the Bible calls death an enemy and the Bible tells us that there will be no death in the New Earth. That does not make sense to me. If death is necessary to produce life why would it now be unnecessary in the new earth. I have read all the articles on theodicy on Francis Collins website biologos.com and none of them adequately explain how to resolve this dilemma. I prefer to believe that the entrance of sin in some way altered some of the fundamental laws of science which would explain the tensions we have today. Otherwise we have sin (death) co-existing throughout God's creation from the very beginning. And if death has been with us from the beginning what kind of death did Jesus save us from and why would he need to save us? But I write too much. I can live with a lot of diversity of opionions as long as people have a dynamic, living, and growing relationship with Jesus Christ. In the end it is not how much knowledge we have that will save us but who we know.
At least an open mind allows new ideas to enter; a closed mind is locked against any intrusion.
Yes, the Bible writers claimed that sin brought death. But death has always been a part of life. If Eve took the fruit; if they ate the herbs, there was death; out of death brings life. It would be a Hell if this earth were to follow the command to be fruitful and multiply and no one, no animal, no plant ever died. Contemplating such an existence is not one I would choose to inhabit.
Death is usually a blessing. As the story goes, only by keeping the pair from the Tree of Life brought death. If inside the garden there was no death: what would the pair eat?Death of decaying vegetation to nourish the earth, no animal deaths, we cannot imagine that sort of life. Only the earth as the Bible writers knew could be described, and they imagined a pleasant utopia which existed before them, none by personal experience. Just as heaven is a utopia in imagination since no has been there either. With such imagination millions of pages have been written to take us, for awhile, out of the humdrum of daily existence. Hope springs eternal.
I’ll agree with you that for people death is a blessing, people with untreatable pain, with cancer, with all kind of diseases. Why to live when life is miserable? No hope, no faith, and no love.
I don’t know about you, but is a blessing to understand and experience John 17:13 “eternal live is to know GOD and JESUS”. This is not an intellectual exercise, is a miracle, an experience that changes lives. Lives full of Hope, Faith and Love.
This is like pain; no one will understand what pain is until is experimented.
is john 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
RE: Mrs. Nelson's comment: " It would be a Hell if this earth were to follow the command to be fruitful and multiply and no one, no animal, no plant ever died."
——
You have omitted one important thought with regards to the blanket statement you have made above. NO ONE SAID THAT WE WOULD BE CONFINED TO THIS PLANET AT CREATION. (Anyway the Earth has a plenty of room especially if the Oceans were land areas – think about it). Sin brought death and decay which as a result has confined us this side of Eden. I have trust and hope in Jesus the Creator to have made ample provision for the creatures of His hand should sin not have entered the world. He is not called Jehovah Jireh (Praise God!) for nothing. He is Provider to all of the Life on this planet and has Provided too a plan of redemption to reconcile us to God. Please accept his invitation Ma'am. Time waits for no man but He is waiting for you. Just surrender your life to Him! You have this right to believe in Him: let no one take your crown of eternal life away!
God Bless!
T
Elaine, I understand your delimma about life in Eden before Adam and Eve took the fruit. But you are operating on a BIG assumption–that the laws we live under today were the same in Eden. My worldview is that sin dramatically changed the landscape of God's creation. I believe different laws operated in Eden that would take care of all the issues you raised. Nature is no longer a perfect revelation of God. It has been corrupted by Satan, the great deceiver. His great desire is to act against God and show that God is not loving. Therefore I need special revelation, the Bible, to help me interpret general revelation, nature.
There is a great story in the book of Joshua where the Gibeonites deceived the Israelites by pretending they came from a great distance. They produced moldly bread, old garments, cracked sandals and the Israelites accepted the age of these items as genuine and they were genuine but they put the wrong interpretation on them. We read in Joshua 9:14 "The Israelites sampled their provisions but did not inquire of the LORD."
If we do not inquire of the Lord we will be deceived in the evolution creation debate. And because each side comes from a fundamental different set of presuppositions there will never be agreement. We all have the same facts, everyone, the challenge is how we interpret those facts. If I interpret primarily through the lens of science I will come up with one interpretation. If I interpret through the lens of the Bible I will come up with a different interpretation. Until we agree on the rules we can never play the game and that is why arguing over the data is pointless unless we first agree on the rules to interpet that data. We will just keep going around and around in circles with no circles ever meeting each other.
Yes, we all operate under differing assumptions: to choose to believe that the world has always been as it is because there is no indication otherwise, is easier for me to believe than at some time in the past the entire laws governing this world, human nature, and all the plant and animal life were suddenly changed. This would mean that the molars and digestive systems suddenly changed where before they had lived peacefully together but suddenly became predators; that the insects and other life forms that carry death, were previously beneficial to mankind and now became carriers of death. Was Satan given permission to make such drastic changes? Where in the Bible is Satan said to have made such changes? Were these experiences simply what the writers were experiencing?
This defies rational understanding and must be built on so many assumptions that with every question, new assumptions must be added. With each question, there is an answer that cannot be verified, but simply believed. We either give scientific findings consideration, or we let the Bible give the answers; answers that are dependent on human interpretation. Why bother with studying science if it might not conform to the Bible?
It is so much simpler to merely let the Bible be an answer to all such questions. Why bother with trying to harmonize science with the Bible when it a foregone conclusion to reject anything that does not agree with the Bible? Limiting to a set of rules closes all questions that would disagree with the interpretation of the Bible. It is very apparent that there are many and varied interpretations within the Bible even among Adventists.
Some have suggested that there should be a uniform voice on every subject.
If "Nature is no longer a perfect revelation of God" when did it cease being a revelation?
Nature reveals something transcendent, beyond humans that has led millions to worship a god they saw revealed in the beauties of nature. Have they ceased to be wondrous and beautiful? Is it your premise that Satan has a hand in changing nature? How has Satan corrupted nature and how do we know he is the villian? Wasn't God the one that uttered the curse with its effects, not Satan?
If so, Adventists must believe that Satan has powers equal to God in affecting nature. Is he limited? Does anyone know where and what he can change? Has Satan always had such powers? Isn't it odd that the early Hebrew writers knew nothing of Satan and everything, both good and evil they believed to come from the hand of God? At what time did this major change take place?
It is curious that the garden of Eden had the Tree of Life. If there was no death before the fall, why was it needed? Perhaps its presence in the garden prevented death there, but what about outside the garden? It would seem that some sort of death existed before the fall for the Tree of Life to prevent.
Fascinating observation. And if the world outside the Garden was perfect, why a garden? The whole world must have been a spectacular garden. And since sin occurred in the Garden, wouldn't one think that the Garden would experience the effects of sin, so there would be no need to banish the disobedient couple? Could it be that an all knowing, loving God set in place a process – evolution – which prescinded human sin, and would both reveal its awfulness and mitigate its consequences through death? In the vast dimensions of eternity, could it be that cause and effect could work backwards as well as forwards – or neither?
A question to which I have no answer is: what effect did Lucifer's fall – and that of 1/3 of the angels – have on the universe? Sin existed before Adam and Eve fell. When I look at the universe, with the birth and death of stars and the destruction of suns and planets, I find it hard to believe that this is the perfection that God created. I do not like the idea of evolution with death and destruction as the method of God creating, but when I look at the universe, that is wht I see happening. It isn't just the fossil record or the geological culumn that raises questions about creation 6,000 years ago followed by sin and the resulting death. Do we need to extend the realm of sin to the outer reaches of our universe? Where then are the unfallen worlds? I still want to believe in God creating in 6 days, but it is by faith, and despite the evidence, not because of it.
The "unfallen worlds" are securely ensconced in the Red Books. They could be somewhere out there too. It doesn't really impact my perception of who God is or who I am in relation to Him. I believe that the first three chapters of Genesis convey compressed Truth about the nature of God, the nature of man, and the nature of sin. Precisely what happened, how it happened, and how long ago it happened are as inconsequential to me as understanding the laws of physics that tell me why a bumble bee can or cannot fly. I am thrilled that others find those questions fascinating, and I marvel at their discoveries.
But the Bible is a book of moral wisdom and transcendent realties. God speaks to me through that book as He spoke to the patriarchs and prophets – not so much to inform me as to evoke a response that empowers Him, through me, to break through encrusted epistemologic barriers of the natural order. By anthropomorphically judging God, requiring that His Word conform with our linguistic understandings and our childish notions of truth-telling, we, like Job's comforters, seek a foolish consistency that, as Emerson observed, is the hobgoblin of small minds.
I suspect we are not that far apart – and as long as we didn't talk politics, all would be well 🙂 Anyone who agrees that "in the beginning God created", that Jesus saves us from our sin, and he is returning 'soon' (as defined by God) is welcome to claim to be an SDA and I won't argue. I still don't like evolution as a method of creating, but if I discover when I get to heaven (being somewhat presumptuous) that God did use evolution over millions of years, or that he did it all in less than 1 second and only used 6 days as a literary motif, I think I could live with that. If I get to heaven, I will be willing to accept anything God says 🙂
Elaine, well it seems that we actually agree on one thing–that our views arise out of differing assumptions. And you simply say that your assumptions are easier to believe than my assumptions. And to that I reply that my assumptions are easier to believe than yours. In either case faith enters into the picture. The core of the Bible is God becoming human, dying, and rising, and coming back for His people. Usuing your assumptions I could never accept that because they are totally unscientific. So that leaves me without a Savior and without hope for a future life. To have a Savior I need to know what I am saved from. I need to know when sin entered and distorted God's creation. Maybe you can see why I have so many questions about evolution since it cannot explain sin and how it fits into the evolutionary pattern.
As I have written earlier I can quite well live with theistic evolutionists if their understanding leads them to a close relationship with God and where they experience God living in their lives and give Him glory and praise. Just as I can live with a legalitic Christian if the same results occur. The bottom line with me is not knowledge but who you know. If you know Jesus and love him with all your heart and love to share him with others I will accept whatever assumptions and ideas you have in other areas. But if these other ideas discourage me from having a relationship with the Creator of the Universe then they become hurtful for me rather than beneficial.
Well stated, David!
I'm sure that all Christians of good will, including Christians who happen to be progressive creationistics/theistic evolutionists, can concur with the sentiments of David Newman and Nate. The only proviso might be that one would hope that both of them would not have problems when some of us use non-traditional phraseology to address traditional religious sentiments, hold different assumptions about how the natural world works, and might have a slightly different take on what is involved when one talks about "sin."
Suppose, Erv, that you got into a conversation with Hugh Hefner about love, and you expressed your deeply held convictions about the joy and meaning that comes from a lifelong commitment to a monogamous relationship of trust, love, and sexual fidelity. Hefner responds that of course all who happen to believe in love can concur with your "sentiments"…the only proviso being that one would hope you would not have problems when some believers use non-traditional phraseology to address traditional sentiments about marriage, hold different assumptions about human sexual psychology, and have a slightly different take on what is involved when one talks about "love."
Do you get my point? Do you think we're stupid – that we can't see through your condescension? Your clumsy attempt to appear reasonable, while verbally denigrating the legitimacy of any reality underlying our faith commitment, which you belittle as sentimentalism, belies your intention to use the language of faith to advance an anti-faith agenda. You unduly flatter yourself by presuming that the phraseology you use to address matters of faith is non-traditional. In fact, there is nothing more traditional among non-believers than the rhetoric you use to describe faith perspectives. It's just a different tradition than I choose to live by.
You can of course define words however you wish. The serpent also had a "slightly different take" on what was involved when one interpreted God's Word. My point here is not to equate you with the serpent, Erv. Rather, I just get testy when people reject common word usage and understandings in order to mainstream ideas which are anything but. The Orwellian use of language to control the debate signals that one is less interested in conversation than in bending minds and hearts to a revolutionary agenda.
Nathan,
Your message to Erv borders on both arrogance and defamation by claiming to "see though his condescension." To charge someone with that is only an indication that there is less than Christian forebearance to anyone with differing views. Can't we all get along if we have the same goal, although our journeys may follow different paths? Is there only one path, the official Adventist path that leads to eternal life?
Well Elaine, I must defer to your proven expertise in arrogance. Obviously you have no understanding of what "defamation" means. Let's see, if I referred to your convictions about evolution as scientific sentiments, would it not be reasonable to conclude that I was denigrating your beliefs? Sorry, I don't think Erv has any plausible deniability here. Of course we can all get along. But we should not be fooled into dissolving critical differences in the meaningless illusion that we "have the same goal."
I suppose you might have said the same thing to Christ in His battles with the Jewish leaders – "Can't we all get along if we have the same goal, although our journeys may follow different paths?" "There is a way that seems right to a man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death." If Christian forebearance precludes one from speaking the truth, then Christ was certainly a poor example of Christian forbearance. Clarity is often – usually -more important than consensus. Linguistic relativism leads to fuzzy thinking, which is an acid that eats at the sinews which bind us to God and to one another in committed communities of faith.
Nate found me out. I didn't think he would be able to see through my consescension. I thought I could get that past him. But he is too smart. Didn't work. But the highlight of his post was: "The Orwellian use of language to control the debate signals that one is less interested in conversation than in bending minds and hearts to a revolutionary agenda." I never thought of that–"bending minds and hearts to a revelutionary agenda." Hmm. That has possiblities . . . . Now let's see how I might be able to bend Nate's mind and heart to my revolutionary agenda. I will think on that.
Nate found me out. I didn't think he would be able to see through my consescension. I thought I could get that past him. But he is too smart. Didn't work. But the highlight of his post was: "The Orwellian use of language to control the debate signals that one is less interested in conversation than in bending minds and hearts to a revolutionary agenda." I never thought of that–"bending minds and hearts to a revelutionary agenda." Hmm. That has possiblities . . . . Now let's see how I might be able to bend Nate's mind and heart to my revolutionary agenda. I will think on that.
These are my thoughts about why life experienced death long before we were created.
Death entered the world through Adam and Eve’s sin. When we look at this statement from the limited per-quantum view that forgets that there is no ‘time-stream’ in eternity, then we are confused as to how there is ‘death’ before the event that brought into reality.
Adam and Eve representing all of humanity, in sinning exercised free choice to disobey God–otherwise known as learning. Avoiding creating the world preprogramed, God choose free choice that we may have an active part in our own programing.
From eternities’ prospective the concepts of "before and after" are completely relative. Speaking of Christ’s coming, Peter teaches he "was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake." 1 Peter 1:20
From the very beginning of the temporal creation God knowing the effects of free choice, created the world with these effects fully anticipated. God did not have to wait to see humanity (Adam and Eve) actually sin to adjust nature for this reality. Nature was created ‘front-loaded’ for adaptation, and death was a part of this system based on the reality of a world where the law of free choice (cause and effect) are normative.
Wherefore, as by one man’s sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for all sinned. Romans 5:12
"All sinned" because Adam is all humanity. Paul’s statement specifically says death passed to all humanity, saying nothing regarding the animal creation. But he includes them later.
Paul expresses that the whole of creation that was ‘unwillingly’ [it was humanities free choice] brought into the situation of death by God who also gives the hope of creation’s redemption, as mankind finally makes all his choices. "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." Romans 8:20-21 Someday soon I hope!
I forgot to reference this verse showing the fluidity of "before and after" in the eternal "Now" of God’s reality, " . . . the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Revelation 13:8
But the question is: Was it God who cursed the earth and caused thorns and thistles, etc., or was it Satan who he allowed to "mess" things up? Was Satan a later "co-creator"?
Satan cannot 'CREATE': he however can 'MUTATE' what is created. Satan is the author of evolution.
T
Here's my view Elaine. God declared, "cursed is the ground for thy sake." Genesis 3:17 Toil and a reasonable amount of hardship are redemptive disciplines necessary for learning and making wise choices and moral characters. Setting up a world based on free choice will involve unreasonable hardships too–genetic mutations, chance accidents and random disasters. Jesus said that "it
rains on the just and the unjust."
None of these are "acts of God," [or satan in my view] but the natural consequences of a ‘physics set free’ of absolute control. Free within bounds–fine-tuned by the Creator for optimal balance for all his purposes. God has asked us to tip the scales in the ‘Right’ direction. Man is to use the incredible mind he has been blessed with to develop medicines to fight disease, build damns to protect areas of habitation and create legal systems and governments to protect the weak and punish the evil.
God encouraged man to begin the work of science and stewardship of the earth. "God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." Genesis 2:15 And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field . . . Genesis 2:19-20
"Naming" all the things of creation was the beginning of science and "dressing and keeping,"
were the beginning of stewardship of the planet. All this so we may someday experience the "new heaven and the new earth"– God will not need to ‘force us’ to enjoy His Kingdom; it will actually be the fulfillment of all our deepest aspirations. Or should be!
A defender of the Adventist Church in the Solomon Islands just posted this on a local newspaper: "The Seventh Day Adventist Church believes and teaches that despite being the true Church of God, God has a people in every religions of the world both Christian and non Christian religions and even among the atheist and the Catholics." With friends like that, we don't need any enemies.