Ultra-Darwinists and Conservative Christians Agree!

Comments: 71

1. 

   Doctorf

   07 February 2012 at 4:26 pm

   "Much of the supposed conflict between science and religion fades for the person who shifts the emphasis away from proving God’s existence to studying God’s qualities as revealed in the amazing universe. Belief in God is a spiritual decision that rightly rests on revelation and personal experience. The Believer can appreciate natural scenic beauty, new scientific insights, and staggering complexity with the same fervor as conservative Christians.."

   Nice summary by Dr. Kootsey. However, by studying the qualities of universe and attributing them to God is still a faith assertion.  People will use whatever they have at their fingertips to argue that their beliefs are rational. How do we "know" that the book of nature is "Gods second book"? Compiled assertions one after another is a house of cards. Certainly one can state with passionate eloquence that the universe just has to be a testimony of Gods existence. But, in the end it is just that an emotional plea relevant only to the one making the plea.

    
   1. 

      Mailen Kootsey

      08 February 2012 at 8:47 pm

      I agree that belief in God is a matter of faith, not proof, but then again so is natural science. No scientist could work without faith in the manufacturers of instrumentation, the producers of reagents, the published articles of fellow scientists, etc., etc. In both cases (God and science) the choice is between blind faith and faith based on evidence and experience. Unfortunately, we have learned in recent years that a few scientists are willing to manufacture data for personal benefit, so checks are necessary. The same can be said for belief in God.
   2. 

      cb25

      15 February 2012 at 10:27 am

      Doctorf,

      You raise the question about how do we know nature is God's second book? I would say that if we can know that, it should at best be the answer to a secondary question.

      The better question is "what book should I be reading?". In light of this great blog the answer is simple: nature(al) things.

      This is where I find myself disagreeing with you somewhat. The human heart is as natural a part of nature as you will find anywhere. It is also immensely "studiable" when it comes to the spiritual dimension. What I mean by that is "we exerperience what we are". You can study any other creature all you want, but will still be an "outsider" to its experience. Not so the human.

      I have repeatedly said we should seek evidence for God in what IS, not in what is NOT. This is similar to a theme of the blog with supernatural vs natural. (What is "not'"quatifiable with what "is" quantifiable.

      My point is this: The universality of spirituality, religiosity, and worship are what IS. Many athiests will admit to the puzzle of the strong similarities in the nature of these within the human heart among diverse and separated cultures.

      How do we explain them? You may well say it is simply the way human nature is, and that may be so. There may well be some very valid explanations for its existence within the context of evolution. However, I think this universality should give us reason to be cautious in denying that it can point to the existence of a reciprocal being. Perhaps to borrow a theme from C.S Lewis, just as hunger points to the existence of food, so too may the spiritual component of our being point to Something, or Someone outside of ourselves.

      One needs to be careful with the house of cards because sometimes ones own house can be built of cards too:)

      I also find myself disagreeing with Kootsey in that I would not emphasise revelation in quite the standing he does. I see it with a role, but also as much wider than (implied) the Bible. He may have had more in mind than that of course.
2. 

   Doctorf

   07 February 2012 at 9:11 pm

   Timo,

   But we know of a universe and our existence. Gods existence seems to be an apparition of the human cortex. Do we invent a God out of a need to explain ourselves and the vast universe? Once one gets past the god defintion then all the fun begins. What god is, what it can do, what it can't do. For all the "powerful" attributes claimed by gods invetor, humans, the being itself if it exists looks pretty impotent. But, I am sure there is a "rational" theological argument for that issue.
3. 

   David Geelan

   07 February 2012 at 9:25 pm

   Not a fan of the label 'Ultra-Darwinists' – 'Darwinism' tends to be more of a pejorative used of evolution by Christians than something that those who believe in evolution[1] would see as applying to themselves.

    

   But that's a nit-pick, and I think there's scope in this thoughtful article for some really interesting discussion, so with that out of the way, I'll dive in (in a separate post).

    

   Thanks to Dr Kootsey for a thoughtful and thought-provoking post.

    

   [1] 'believe in' is actually not the right term – 'believe that the modern evolutionary synthesis, while still a work in progress, offers our best model for understanding how the diversity of life has arisen' is much more accurate, if a bit ungainly in the middle of sentences!
4. 

   David Geelan

   07 February 2012 at 9:42 pm

   "The natural world was once called “God’s Second Book” by Christians, but recently this volume has been abandoned by many with the determination to derive knowledge of God only from revelation."

    

   Yes! An excellent description of a very sad trend.

    

   "
   Is the natural world too damaged by sin to be regarded as another revelation of God? A central focus of scientific investigation is the understanding of basic laws and mechanisms behind everything we observe and experience. Some examples would be gravity, the properties of light and radio waves, atoms and molecules, and motion and forces. Observations beyond the surface of the earth to our solar system and the universe far beyond clearly show that the basic laws and mechanisms we observe on earth work exactly the same way at great distances as they do on the surface of the (sinful) earth. Since we have no hint from written revelation that the universe beyond the earth is tainted with sin, it is reasonable to conclude that these basic laws and mechanisms can be regarded as created by God in the manner we observe."

    

   Yes! What a simple, elegant and excellent argument!

    

   Apologies for the longish quotes, but I wanted to point out a couple of particularly excellent points – while recognising that they are part of a structured argument in the whole article.

    

   I'll shut up for a bit now and let others react, but this is an exciting article!
5. 

   Joe Erwin

   07 February 2012 at 10:45 pm

   It is nice to see Dr. Kootsey quoted here. He was a physics student at PUC while Erv and I were there in the late 1950s and early 1960s. He is clearly brilliant and thoughtful.

   I do not hear much about "Ultra-Darwinists" from within modern biology. In fact, I do not consider myself a "Darwinist" at all, along with many other secular (and some religious) biologists who are committed to evidence-based science. First, Alfred Russel Wallace deserves shared credit for describing "natural selection" as an important mechanism in evolution, so attributing the concept to Darwin alone is just wrong. Secondly, neither Darwin nor Wallace (nor Mendel) knew much about modern population biology or molecular biology or the "new synthesis." Modern genomics and population dynamics are so far removed from Darwin and Wallace as to be nearly unrecognizable.

   Even so, evidence-based modern biology affirms many of the concepts those old guys developed–it's just that in most cases they had only a glimmer of an idea of how biology works. But because science provides powerful methods of gaining and refining knowledge, progress has occurred, unfettered (well, somewhat fettered) by dogmatic assumptions. It is rather mysterious (to me) how anyone, no matter how brilliant, can rationalize belief in the "super-natural" world and the natural world at the same time. Perhaps my brain just isn't built that way. I can believe in eternal time and infinite space, but in a natural sense–not as super-natural phenomena.
   1. 

      Mailen Kootsey

      08 February 2012 at 9:19 pm

      Maybe it is time to define a third category besides natural and supernatural: events or objects that are governed by and the result of natural laws, but beyond our current understanding and technology. The relatively recent concept of "emergence", now clearly supported by science, almost demands such a category. A good name for this category would be "hypernatural".
      1. 

         Doctorf

         16 February 2012 at 11:52 pm

         Mailen,

         What emerges comes from knowable systems. We may not know the mechanisms for emergence but there is no reason to invent supernatural explanations. Supernatural implies intervention by some all powerful entity. However, the universe and what we see seems in many ways to be explainable and there is no need to invent superntural explanations. Supernatural explanations of phenomena result when humans are in a position where they cannot explain a phenomena. However, many supernatural explanations have gone the way of extinction in the light of modern science and technology.
6. 

   David Geelan

   08 February 2012 at 12:14 am

   Arrghhhh – not the old 'second law of thermodynamics forbids evolution' furphy!

    

   I won't get into it here, because I don't want to derail the discussion of this excellent article, but do some reading, my friend: you've been lied to.
7. 

   Joe Erwin

   08 February 2012 at 1:41 am

   Limitless space and time seem to me to be quite likely, and have seemed so to me since childhood. I suppose my reason for thinking about it at all was that I was taught that God had always existed and would continue to exist forever. In my childish way, I imagined that He had always been creating and would always continue to do so. Hence, limitless time and space seemed plausible and likely. When I began to find it difficult to believe that the God concept was anything other than an invention of the human imagination, I did not find any reason to discard my notion that space and time could be limitless. But I do not claim to KNOW this–only to imagine it, and as space science continues to gain knowledge, that intuition seems to be closer and closer to what is being found. It can never be confirmed, though, as is obvious. There may always be something beyond the farthest "thing" we know, or not, but we cannot know which for certain.

   It seems to me that we simply cannot KNOW God exists, in anything other than a self-delusional sense. We can think or believe or imagine. We can have an illusion or delusion and we can feel absolutely certain. But believing something, no matter how firmly we believe, simply does not make it true. Believing something is NOT true does not make it false. So where does that leave any of us? Does it leave us to make a blind choice? Or must we simply admit to not knowing for sure? And in a practical sense, does it not suggest living in an evidence-based world with the possibility that something exists that we cannot really know or understand? Some will say that all we have to do is believe The Bible. In some way. In some sense. But even those who believe do not agree among themselves as to how that can or should be done. And many assert that their way is the only possible way. That is not credible on the face of it.
   1. 

      Ella M

      11 February 2012 at 1:17 am

         I would say this makes one an agnostic.  Being an honest agnostic may seem the rational thing for most people who feel they do not want to study more on the subject of faith.  I tend to believe that one can study themselves into or out of a religious belief.  One can be very sure of a God if they make faith a center of their lives, pray, and study.  My own experiences have verified God for me, but not for others.  That is their choice and what they choose to surround themselves with.  No, I could not be a rigid believer of a literal scripture all the way through, because it makes no sense that God would work that way in a changing world that has increased in knowledge in a relatively short time. I question how humans could exist 100,000 years and only in the last 200 gain such immense knowledge.
       People get disappointed by rigid/literal religion when it does not fit into the world as we know it.  Or they may just stay with it and treat it as one would a superstion.
         The Kootsey article was excellent.   To God all things are "natural."
8. 

   Anonymous

   08 February 2012 at 7:03 pm

   I do not want to side track this discussion on the very good article posted by my friend Erv.  I am intrigued that Joe keeps involving himself in discussions on AT, especially as he says that he is a non believer.  I am leaving a quote from the foremost atheist of the 20th century who moved from atheism to a belief in God which has shocked his fellow atheists.  Antony Flew writes in his book "There is a God"  At the most recent debate in 2004, at New York University, he declared that he ‘now accepted the existence of a God’ (p. 74). In that debate, he said that he believed that the origin of life points to a creative Intelligence,

   ‘almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence’ (p. 75).

    

   The complexity of the genetic code led Flew to believe that the origin of life required a ‘creative intelligence’.

   Flew was particularly impressed with a physicist’s refutation of the idea that monkeys at typewriters would eventually produce a Shakespearean sonnet. The likelihood of getting one Shakespearean sonnet by chance is one in 10⁶⁹⁰; to put this number in perspective, there are only 10⁸⁰ particles in the universe. Flew concludes:

   ‘If the theorem won’t work for a single sonnet, then of course it’s simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance’ (p. 78).

   Flew was also critical of Dawkins’s ‘selfish gene’ idea, pointing out that ‘natural selection does not positively produce anything. It only eliminates, or tends to eliminate, whatever is not competitive’ (p. 78). He called Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene ‘a major exercise in popular mystification’, and argued that Dawkins made the critical mistake of overlooking the fact that most observable traits in organisms are the result of the coding of many genes (p. 79).
   1. 

      Mailen Kootsey

      08 February 2012 at 9:36 pm

      Random chance and fiat (supernatural) creation are not the only choices for the development of complexity such as DNA and the genetic process. There are now many known examples of the generation of complexity or information in strictly natural circumstances, telling us that there are natural laws — not yet known — governing such generation. Scientists such as Kauffman are trying to decipher such natural laws, but the search is just beginning. Personally, I am more impressed by a God who creates wonderful and complex things such as life through orderly processes than I am by a God who zaps things into existence supernaturally.
      1. 

         Joe Erwin

         08 February 2012 at 11:28 pm

         Right, Mailen. I have always had trouble with the "random" or "chance" explanations. I can recall arguing that some replication errors were surely more likely than others, and in some cases must be based on differential vulnerability. So, then we began to see retroviral cleaving, with insertions, deletions, and rearrangements, and mobile elements and all sorts of intronic activity–not just exonic proteomics. It is quite wonderful, and far more complex than anyone could have imagined a few decades ago. Dawkins is an easy target, by the way. He has often speculated far beyond what he knew at the time, and he has made a handsome living by generating controversy. Flew too. Both have been controversial and both have turned that into profit. Perhaps they were more alike than different.

         There is, of course, intelligence inherent in genomes. And genomes are "emergents." Behavior (from that of particles to that of people) is emergent, as is thought, and speech, and pretty much any functional phenomenon. It is not tangible nor material. And yet, many of these things can be observed and/or measured. I do not see life as originating or evolving by chance, but then I also do not see it as being very goal directed either–despite trajectories with somewhat limiting or narrowing outcomes.

         As a former believer who is no longer able to believe what I formerly did, I still have some interest in how others are able to believe or how they express the changes in belief they have experienced. I'm not telling anyone else they cannot or should not believe, but I do prefer to live an evidence-based life, even within the wonderfully complex and fascinating reality in which we live.
         1. 

            Mailen Kootsey

            10 February 2012 at 5:57 am

            Randomness does play a role in some natural events, Joe. For example, in the quantum world, theory can only calculate probabilities so that when a measurement is made, randomness rears its head. Example: decay of radioactive nuclei, where the "selection" of which nucleus decays next is apparently random, although the average rate is governed by a fixed probability determined by nuclear forces. Chemical reactions are another example, where we can measure an average rate (i.e. probability of reaction), but we cannot say which particular molecules will react next. There is chance is evolution, too, but it is not the only mechanism so those calculations of huge improbabilities by some creationists are not scientific.
   2. 

      Doctorf

      16 February 2012 at 11:56 pm

      David,

      I was going to respond to you but Mailen already did. Just an addition, order does come out of random systems of matter if their is enough density for material interaction. Stars are not "created" they form and organize from randomized matter. These events are very rare but we see them because of the immense amount of matter in the universe. Flew is doing nothing more than making assertions that there just has to be a tinkering God to cobble matter together. 
9. 

   Joe Erwin

   10 February 2012 at 12:53 pm

   You are quite correct, Mailen. There are apparently some truly random processes. Probabalistic thinking and modeling that assumes randomness or constants or assumes a random error componant in variance enables consideration of relationships when actual causal relationships are unknown or not yet measurable. So the early descriptions of "randomness" in ontogenetic and phylogenetic change need to be recognized as primitive and no longer valid. That we cannot distinguish between equally probable events, is not quite the same thing as there being a large role in evolution for "chance" mutations. There is some confusion between replication errors occurring "by chance" and the consequences of replication errors being randomly distributed. In both cases, what was sometimes previously regarded as random is now seen to be much less so. All this is a long way of agreeing entirely with you that "those calculations of huge improbabilities by some creationists are not scientific." In some cases they might have been quite appropriate 100 years ago, given what was thought and/or known at the time.   
10. 

    Philip Law

    10 February 2012 at 6:24 pm

    Huge improbalilities may be  due to faulty assumptions or assigning faulty probabilties to certain chance events.  To call them unscientific could be problematic.  Was Cold Fusion unscientific before or after it was proven wrong?  It will be interesting to demostrate by an example of how one of those imrpobalities were faulty. Any taker?
    1. 

       Joe Erwin

       10 February 2012 at 7:23 pm

       The greatest strength and value of science as a method of acquiring, evaluating, refining, and advancing knowledge is that it is a progressive process. So, knowledge arrived at using scientific methods at one point in time is likely to undergo revision as more evidence accummulates.

       Mathematical modeling and calculating probabilities are techniques used in science. They are virtually always based on assumptions that are more or less established by empirical evidence. Assumptions. Assumptions that are more or less evidence based. Assumptions that are often refined or falsified.

       More than 40 years ago I felt that we did not sufficiently understand how genomic variability originated, and it seemed to me that what was known at that time about the processes that promoted replication errors was insufficient to account for the rapidity of evolutionary change that the fossil record indicates. Variability is, of course, essential to enable natural selection to occur.

       It is now clear, and has been for some time, that there are a number of processes not previously dreamed of, that introduce genetic change in human and other genomes. When a retroviral infection inserts DNA into the genome of its host, that can be a major promotor of genomic change. When retroviral and other particles cleave existing DNA or RNA strands, insertion, deletion, and rearrangement can occur. Mobile elements and even intronic (non-protein-producing genomic regions) are able to turn on or off aspects of the exonic machinery of the genome or its proteomic products in various cells during ontogeny, at times even within germ cell lines, or by influential physiological/metabolic/endocrine processes, WOW! Are there enough processes to create variability? You bet! And more such processes are being discovered all the time.

       So, the old assumptions, many of them made when almost nothing was known about genomes or how they work, are no longer valid. Much of what was assumed to be random has turned out not to be random, or not to be nearly as random as had been thought. The use of assumptions that have been totally falsified and discarded does not constitute credible science. Contuning to use outmoded models is "unscientific," in that sense. I hope this is helpful. I imagine that others may be able to explain this better than I can.
       1. 

          Doctorf

          16 February 2012 at 11:59 pm

          Joe,

          Nice lay summary of what "non-coding" DNA does. We used to think these were clipped out and discarded. NO! They form micro RNA's which modulate transcription and translation of mRNA. What we now know is that much of the DNA code is engaged in regulation of a smaller number of genes.
11. 

    Philip Law

    10 February 2012 at 8:16 pm

    Randomness used to be the foundation argument for evolution but now non-randomness can be the basis of some genetic variations with laws of chemistry and physics in place.  It is interesting to explore the macro phenomena that many mutations are detrimental to the survival of an organism to say less about the survival of a species. On the other hand most ‘successful’ genetically engineered end products are the results of purposeful designs by intelligent beings.  It is possible that molecular or genetic discoveries in the future may yet demonstrate that Darwinian speciation is improbable due to impossible molecular mechanism requirements.
12. 

    Joe Erwin

    10 February 2012 at 9:00 pm

    One can certainly speculate about what might be discovered in the future, but finding that natural selection does not play a role in speciation is pretty unlikely, since there is already a massive amount of evidence that indicates occurrence of both positive and negative selection. Finding that huge chunks of DNA are introduced into host genomes by retroviruses and maintained across many generations and across species helps us recognize what can be selected for or against. We can now see both conserved and derived aspects of genomes, and now we can see that very substantial changes can occur almost instantaneously. By the way, the genetic engineering techniques used to "humanize" the mouse immune system or to insert firefly genes that make mice glow, are techniques that mimic what happens naturally when retroviruses infect people and insert their DNA into the human genome. In many (maybe most) cases, retroviral material is used to accomplish "knock-in" and "knock-out" genetic engineering. People just used the intelligence that already existed in the viral DNA. Feel free to believe that it was put there by some higher intelligence. Or not. Anyway, all of this makes for pretty interesting reading and more is being discovered all the time.
13. 

    Philip Law

    11 February 2012 at 1:49 am

    “People just used the intelligence that already existed in the viral DNA. Feel free to believe that it was put there by some higher intelligence.” Right on! And before that the Physical Laws of the Universe were operational.   I once carpooled with a biology professor from the University of California to a UCLA molecular biological conference, our conversation naturally touched on topics of science and faith.  His amazement was less about biological aspect of evolution but the orderliness of the physical universe.  It will take a lot of intelligence and logical twists of mind to accept the fact that our current Laws of the Universe is just one realization at the initiation of the Big Bang of a permutation of all possible Laws. To do that requires a lot of faith.  Ravi Zacharias remarked that he is not an atheist because his faith is not strong enough! 
14. 

    Ella M

    11 February 2012 at 1:55 am

    Mailen Kootsey,
       I have your tapes on emergence given a couple of years ago at the San Diego Forum.  Thank you for sharing your exciting insights into nature as well as the above blog. 
       You mentioned Frank J. Tipler's book The Physicis of Immortality (1994) in which he claims that "science has found God"–at least his science.  He talks about the Omego Point that will resurrect us to eternal life.  As a non-scientist I read this several years ago.  He says that this resurrection will be delayed a long time until the relative computer resources required are available to guide us into this bliss.  If I read it right he sees God as a cosmic computer.  What is your take on this bizarre-sounding theory?  BTW I just read in the recent Scientific American that some scientists think the universe is digitalized.
    1. 

       Mailen Kootsey

       12 February 2012 at 5:07 am

       Computers have achieved many significant things, partly because their capabilities have continued to grow so rapidly. I have spent much of my career promoting, utilizing, and developing computer simulations, primarily of physiological and biochemical systems. So the question is: is it likely that we will be able to both record the exact state of a human brain and all body components and reconstruct the whole human in a computer simulation? We are so far from that now that I would not give it any significant possibility. My guess is that prediction of Tipler was based on the reductionist philosophy popular in the 20th C and still quite strong. Reductionism says that if you take a complex system apart into component parts and learn both the structure of the system and what the components do, you understand the system completely. Complex systems are now known to be emergent, i.e. that their actual behavior cannot be predicted solely from their components and interactions — because the range of possible behaviors is too large. Knowing the exact position of every atom and molecule in the body would help, but then the uncertainties of quantum mechanics would appear!
15. 

    Darrel Lindensmith

    11 February 2012 at 3:01 am

    Dr Kootsey, could you please explain this amazing statement:
    “There are now many known examples of the generation of complexity or or information in strictly natural
    circumstances, telling us that there are natural laws — not yet known — governing such generation.” ???
    1. 

       Mailen Kootsey

       11 February 2012 at 5:56 am

       Organized behavior arises spontaneously in a variety of complex systems, starting with chemical solutions. Biological systems have received the most attention because of the interest in the origin of such systems. Here are three books, written for the intelligent scientific lay person, offering multiple examples: The Tinkerer's Accomplice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself, J. Scott Turner; Signs of Life: How Complexity Pervades Biology, Ricard Sole and Brian Goodwin; Sync: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order, Steven Strogatz. There are also scientific monographs, such as The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution, by Stuart A. Kauffman. I would also recommend three articles by research scientists who are Christians in the latest issue of PERSPECTIVES on Science and Christian Faith, December, 2011. One point they make is that biological systems generate complexity by interaction with their environments.
16. 

    Darrel Lindensmith

    11 February 2012 at 2:14 pm

    So some unknown laws (possibly unknowable
    laws) naturally give rise to complex information
    and information processing machines creatio ex nihilo?
17. 

    Joe Erwin

    11 February 2012 at 3:40 pm

    I find much in the above comments that is interesting and provocative, and some things with which I agree, though some might think I would disagree.

    I cannot proclaim with confidence that there is no God. I cannot, in that sense, be an atheist. I do not presume to KNOW that there is no God nor any spiritual dimension. I doubt the existence of God (at least as He is usually conceived of or portrayed), and I also doubt the existence of a "spiritual dimension" (although I recognize the potential existence of n-dimensional hyperspace).

    Not that my brain compares with that of Einstein, but I agree that it is difficult to imagine how the human mind can conceive of God. My impression is that God is unknowable, although I think there are many potentially knowable things that have not yet been discovered–and, that, given endless time, there will never be a time when everything that could be known will be known.

    So, if God is unknowable, how can anyone be held responsible for not believing in Him/Her/It?

    Besides, scripture seems to teach that the humblest and simplest person can know God sufficiently for salvation, so knowing is subordinate to believing and understanding is trumped by faith. Somewhere in this there seems to be an argument in favor of ignorance and a devaluing of intelligence and/or efforts to advance knowledge.

    Perhaps the best we can hope for is a dual track, where we attempt to advance understanding while maintaining a humble and irrational faith. Do others here feel that way too?
18. 

    Darrel Lindensmith

    11 February 2012 at 7:06 pm

    Joe, I can agree in principle with what you are saying.
    And very well said!
19. 

    Darrel Lindensmith

    11 February 2012 at 10:46 pm

    Like Hawking now, Oxford chemist Peter Atkins put up the idea that “space-time generates its own dust in the process of its own self-assembly.”  Creation Revisited,  Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1994, p. 143

    Atkins dubs this the “Cosmic Bootstrap” principle which refers to self-defeating idea of a man lifting himself up by his own bootstraps.  His Oxford colleague, philosopher Keith Ward states the obvious saying, it is “logically impossible for a cause to bring about an effect without being already in existence”. God, Chance and Neccessity, Oxford, One World Pub., 1996, p. 49
     
    In my view, information rich systems with a specified and complex code must not come from a law but a Mind.  But if these systems do come from a host of laws, then their appearance would have been front-loaded into physics itself.

    So either way, The Creator and the Mind of God are prerequisite.
20. 

    David Patterson

    11 February 2012 at 11:06 pm

    To paraphrase the Argument from Design:  "The existence of a complex and powerful being, such as man, implies the existence of a more powerful and more intelligent being, God."   If that is a true statement then the existence of this powerful and intelligent God implies the existence of a still more powerful and intelligent SuperGod, and so on forever.  Those who accept the Argument from Design do not accept its logical continuation.  This does not mean that there is no God; it just means that the Argument from Design proves nothing.
21. 

    Darrel Lindensmith

    11 February 2012 at 11:59 pm

    I remember a Hindu older woman who anticipated
    the problem “infinite regress,” and stated wyerly, “I know
    What you are going to say, and ‘it’s turtles all the way down!’

    Anyway, I think that you are right of course; the ‘infinite
    Regress’ is a logical possibility. So what does that tell us?
    If we discover in some ancient cave on a hither to for, unexplored
    Island, markings of an organized organized sort,
    We would posit a language and thus language
    Makers. We would not say, I don’t know where these people
    Would have come from, therefore I can not conclude that they are
    Real. We would not need to know anything about
    Them or their origin to conclude that they exist.

    In the area of origins and the ‘infinite regress’ we
    Would agree we must come to terms with Aristotle’s
    ‘unmoved mover.’. The very problem you rightly ask,
    Forces us to the logical reality of Eternal Being-the Creator, Capital C.
22. 

    Darrel Lindensmith

    12 February 2012 at 12:03 am

    Oops. 4th line down above I wanted to say
    Logical ‘impossibility.’. Thanks
23. 

    Joe Erwin

    12 February 2012 at 6:48 pm

    Hi Timo, I'm trying to understand your question. I think you are asking whether people with advance Ivy League degrees feel that if THEY can't know something, no one else can know it. I cannot think of a specific instance, but it would not surprise me. It isn't unusual for elitist people of any stripe–advanced degrees or not–to feel that they have some special insights and/or are better equipped than others to "know" things.

    Of course, we also see people who claim special revelation from the Holy Spirit or the direct Voice of God, and what they claim to know does not necessarily seem credible or align with the best evidence we know of.

    And yes, Ivy League or not, I have known people with PhDs who feel that their degree is a license to speak authoritatively, even on topics on which they have little expertise or understanding. I desire not to be among those.
24. 

    David Read

    14 February 2012 at 1:43 am

    I've never heard of anyone trying to prove God by proving the supernatural. 

    In the first place, believers understand that we believe by faith, and that there is, ultimately, no "proof" of the existence of God.  There are arguments for the existence of God, the argument from design being one such. 

    Second, believers believe in miracles not because we're trying to "prove" the existence of God, but because God, in His Word, recounts His many miraculous acts.  God tells us repeatedly that He is a God of miracles.   

    Finally, God has promised even more miracles in the eschaton, when God will resurrect the dead, take us to heaven, and re-create the world into a place where there is no death.  As Jan Paulsen said in a sermon, "All of these belong to the world of miracles. They are displays of God's unfathomable creative power. Those who have problems with the creative powers of God, or a God of creation, they have a problem so huge they don't know what to do with it, because they have no future, they have no — everything that lies in God's future is miraculous."

    "Peter hints at the fact that there are some scoffers that you will meet, and we meet them, we meet them sometimes in our own church. They are good mixers, they cause uneasiness among believers by appearing to be intellectuals, well read, ever so clever, they demand intellectual respectability of that which is to be believed, and they will often intimidate believers. Peter says that the problem with the scoffers is that they chose to ignore, they deliberately forget. It is a choice they make. They chose to deny the almightiness of the Creator who caused the earth to be formed. But Peter says, my dear friends, "you must not forget, you must remember," so I have reminded you, my brothers and sisters in leadership . . ."
25. 

    Ervin Taylor

    14 February 2012 at 5:05 am

    I wonder if Mr. Read would do the readers of this blog the courtesy of providing the reference for Dr. Paulsen's statement that he quotes.  Many of us would all like to read the entire sermon to put it in context.  Unlike many who like to quote this text in Peter (they shall remain nameless), even if one disagrees with Dr. Paulsen's often very conservative conclusions, the individual points he makes are typically expressed within an intellectually honest and informed framework.
26. 

    David Read

    14 February 2012 at 5:34 am

    Dr. Taylor,  Spectrum posted a link to a video of the sermon, which is where I watched it. 

    http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2012/02/03/sabbath-sermon-annual-council-2009%E2%80%94jan-paulsen.

    The sermon was delivered at Silver Spring, MD, at the Annual Council of 2009, but I'm not certain of the specific date.  The portion I quoted started after the 38 minute mark.  I don't know if there is a transcript; I transcribed the quoted portion myself in the process of listening to it several times.
27. 

    David Read

    14 February 2012 at 5:49 am

    I should add that the sermon was not about origins, but about the gospel and specifically how the cross should change how we relate to others, that we should be amabassadors of the cross of Christ.  The portion dealing with origins was limited to what I've quoted above.

    The sermon was not conservative.  Elder Paulsen called for greater participation of women in SDA ministry, for greater participation of young people in the life and governance of the SDA Church, and for toleration of, and conversation with, the church's academics even though we will sometimes pointedly disagree with them. 

    Certainly, no one could accuse Elder Paulsen of being a reactionary, a traditionalist or a fundamentalist, but even he apparently has no use for Seventh-day Darwinism.
    1. 

       Kevin Riley

       14 February 2012 at 11:05 pm

       Dr Paulsen is, in many ways, a conservative SDA.  As such, he probably represents most SDAs in the western world better than certain other leaders have/do.  He is prepared to be innovative in many areas, but SDA doctrine is not noticeably one of them.  I personally do not believe that support for doctrinal innovation is something we should look for in a church leader at GC level. 
28. 

    Ervin Taylor

    15 February 2012 at 5:55 pm

    I thank Mr. Read for the information.  As Mr. Riley notes, there is no question that Dr. Paulsen is a conservative SDA when it comes to any doctrinal innovation. However, I think there is enough evidence to conclude that he is not a fundamentlist.  Given the realities of contemporary Adventism, including the internal politics of clerical leadeship, he is as progressive as the current climate in the church will permit, which is clearly in a reactionary phase, as the "election" of the curent GC president revealed and the views of Mr. Read and many others testify.    
    1. 

       Kevin Riley

       16 February 2012 at 12:05 am

       The old saying "it is always darkest before the dawn" is perhaps worth remembering.  I have noticed among members there is now a slight shift to the left, at least here in Australia.  As the conservative centre is already somewhat to the left of much of North America, that puts us nearer to where we were 30-40 years ago.  Of course, the far right seems to be continuing on its right-ward journey, but many in the centre who were not sure if that was the wrong way to move have now been able to see that it is.  I have heard from members in the US that they also perceive a slight shift leftward, or at least a renewed determination not to be dragged any further rightward.  This is interesting as it reflects a lessening of conservative influence in the wider society, and we usually don't react quite so quickly. 

       Before anyone jumps to conclusions, I don't believe the SDA church will ever become a liberal denomination, or that the majority will ever move left of what Mr Corson characterised as Conservative and Evangelical SDAs, but I do see the strong push by fundamentalist groups resulting in a reaction from the centre not to allow the church as a whole to become a fundamentalist church.  That will move the centre of influence in a leftward direction.  If the church leadership, the majority of whom still fall somewhere in the centre, found the courage to lead out in this process, it would result in a faster and less bloody resolution.  Should the church membership defy the force of historical precedent and actually get involved in fighting for their church, it could all be over very quickly.  I don't actually have enough faith to believe either will happen in the near future.  But there is always God to consider, so miracles may not be impossible.
       1. 

          David Geelan

          16 February 2012 at 8:16 am

          I agree on those observations for Australia, but the SDA church faces the exact same challenges as the Anglicans – a very large, very conservative and growing Third World membership. It is splitting the Anglican church on the issues of homosexuality and women's ordination, with conservatives in the West allying with the Third World against liberals in the West.
          1. 

             Kevin Riley

             16 February 2012 at 11:33 am

             But the third world is also becoming more educated, and that seems to spell the end for fundamentalism.  Conservative religions are able to attract well eductated people, fundamentalism usually does not.  The third world is also seeing the beginning of an exodus by second and third generation SDAs – the traditonal SDA areas of the Pacific are well into that process, and I believe Africa also has some areas where that is underway.  The questioning that attempting to solve that problem will generate is likely to also lead to a move away from fundamentalism.  Sometime in the next couple of decades I hope it will become evident to leaders everywhere that we cannot continue to rely on growth from migrants – whether from the developing world to the developed world or from country to city – to keep the church growing and we will finally put in the effort necessary to understand why each succeeding generation is less likely to stay and what we can do to overcome that.  Perhaps developing an SDAism that is relevant to all, not just to a small group of lower middle-class conservatives would be a good place to start.  Perhaps I am naive, but I still believe the basic package is good, we just do a very bad job of presenting it to people outside that group, or those who want to be part of that group.
             1. 

                Stephen Foster

                16 February 2012 at 1:30 pm

                This isn’t the topic of the blog post, but a comment on the remarks about the ideological spectrum of western SDAs.
                 
                Here is an admittedly politically incorrect prediction: As long as there is an increasing percentage of Adventists of Hispanic and African descent in North America, who may include immigrants from the Latin “Third World” or Americans of African descent, there will be no significant leftward trend in North America.From both faith and growth perspectives, this is a sad commentary on recent developments in the European/Caucasian community in North America—that is from a conservative SDA perspective.
                 
                That said, if time lasts, there will be a schism; as may be appropriate. They used to call it the shaking.
29. 

    Joe Erwin

    16 February 2012 at 4:22 pm

    What is "politically incorrect" (or correct) here on AToday hardly resembles what is acceptable in other contexts, but I would not be comfortable in any context characterizing the views of individuals on the basis of ethnicity or geographic origin.

    Perhaps characterization on socioeconomic status or educational attainment or mental health status would be more appropriate and valid, although I remain reluctant to assign general characteristics of groups to individual members of those groups.
    1. 

       Stephen Foster

       16 February 2012 at 5:11 pm

       You are right Joe, those other statuses are “more appropriate,” that’s why my (accurate) observation is politically incorrect. As it happens, it has nothing to do with ethnicity or geographic origin, and everything to do with culture; but is nonetheless politically incorrect.
        
       Of course, elite/elitist “First Worlders” among us would say that it has to do with educational attainment. It actually has more to do with mis-educational attainment than anything. I believe mis-education is a cultural phenomenon; akin to social pathologies within ethnic groups.
        
       I realize this is provocative and I could very well be totally wrong, as this is just an opinion based on observation; albeit over 50 years of (mis?)-observation. 
30. 

    Elaine Nelson

    16 February 2012 at 6:08 pm

    Socio-economic factors are much more important than race and ethnicity.  This is clearly demonstrated in the various school districts in cities:  the higher the socio-economic status of the parents usually lead them to choose a home, when possible, in the school districts with the highest API.  Higher education is usually found in those with higher incomes; plus educated parents produce children who have been taught to value higher education.

    The one discrediting factor for continued adherence to a particular religious creed is the questioning and examination of ideas that all higher education should introduce.  Critical thinking is a part of an educated mind and there are no limits to the investigative process.  This can, and has led to great examination of the religious heritage which may have been taught. Failure to do so at that age will most likely be at a later age when it can be more traumatic.  Young adults are changing;  discovering what is important; their future careers, marriage partners, where to live, etc.

    The SDA church appears to have failed rather badly in retaining the youth.  This has been shown by many studies.  The average age of members is 51 and the retention of the  young is rather dismal.  Putting  new wine into old wineskins has never worked.  There are culture wars both ouside and inside the church and the youth today are judging the church by its attitude toward those changes:  homosexuality, gender equality, the exclusivistic stance of its president; all are not conducive to growth for  young people and many older members.
31. 

    David Geelan

    16 February 2012 at 9:38 pm

    There is strong sociological evidence that people tend to cling to religion when the material circumstances of their lives are not secure – when they're not sure where their food and water are coming from, or are in fear of their lives. In situations where life is more secure, religion tends to drift away. These findings have nothing to do with 'should', the just describe what people actually do. It's unsurprising that Adventism is growing among the global poor and waning among the wealthy – the same is true of all other faiths, including Islam.

     

    (Will probably derail the discussion by including this, but what the heck: it's interesting, in light of these findings, that the US is by far the most religious of the major developed nations… but that's a side note)

    So there's that challenge with rebuilding the denomination going forward. Then there's the issue Elaine raised of critical thinking. In most walks of life and on most issues, saying 'most educated people disagree with my opinion' is a good signal that it's time to take another look at that opinion. In the religious realm, as exemplified in Stephen Foster's post in this thread, it is rather a signal to take another look at education, and to claim that *it* is the problem.

    My own reasons for leaving the SDA church (but not God) have been discussed at length in another thread here, but boil down to a conflict between my own moral framework and the teachings of the church (explicit and tacit) on a variety of issues. The issue is the same for most young people in developed countries: their own moral framework, arrived at through empathy and critical thinking, tells them that discrimination against women and homosexual people is wrong, yet the church requires them to accept those things as right. I *honour* someone who chooses the moral alternative, often at the cost of much of their social support network.
32. 

    David Geelan

    16 February 2012 at 9:45 pm

    'The shaking' is a lovely meme, isn't it. Of course, in case of schism, it means each person gets to decide that one side is the wheat and the other the chaff… and the other side to decide the opposite.

     

    In other words, as a meme, it's useless in terms of determining which is the 'real McCoy'.

     

    Dang handy for random acts of self-righteousness, though…
33. 

    Stephen Foster

    16 February 2012 at 10:55 pm

    Well, I told you so. The poor need religion, the rich don’t…only certain educated classes think critically. (See what I mean?)
     
    I’m no better, I know how intolerant I am of the opinions of those whose worldview differs from mine, and how I consider them as deficient in character.
     
    The fact is we in the west are largely Laodicean, thinking we are self-sufficient because we have everything we need, etc.
     
    All of our attitudes—and lack of faith—and love—has been accurately prophesied.
34. 

    Kevin Riley

    16 February 2012 at 11:21 pm

    In most Western countries religion has become the preserve of the middle classes.  Both the poor and the rich have abandoned religion.  That may not be true of the US, but is for Western Europe and Australasia.  Even those 'working class' groups like AOGs have now become solidly middle class – which is one reason why the prosperity gospel has taken off among them.  Preaching to those who are genuinely poor that wealth is a sign of God's favour just doesn't work so well.  There is also evidence that those with a university education are more likely to be religious, while a post-graduate degree reduces the likelihood of church affiliation, although not necessarily religious/spititual belief.  That is why I said fundamentalism has little appeal for those who are well educated.  The exceptions come almost entirely from science/engineering backgrounds where there is a tendency to emphasise rules and regularity. But both mainstream and conservative churches do well among univerity graduates.  That post-graduate study leads away from church membership probably says more about the ways in which many churches present religion than it does about religion itself.  There are churches that have appealed to people with multiple post-graduate degrees.  But they tend to look and sound somewhat different to 'normal' churches.  I believe one or two people here belong to such churches.

    Even in developing countries there is evidence that religion is more common among those who are on the way up, or aspire to do so.  And education at first attracts people to religion rather than repelling them.  It is only as churches fail to respond to rising levels of education that religious affilliation falls.  That makes me believe it is the packaging far more than the contents that are the problems.  Any religion that in any way has moral and spiritual integrity should be able to be packaged in multiple ways that will connect with and appeal to both the intellectually/educationally challenged and those with a high degree of intelligence and education – as well as everyone in between.  The failure to do so lies entirely with the religion, not with the public.
    1. 

       cb25

       16 February 2012 at 11:50 pm

       Kevin,

       You have made some good points there. I would only perhaps add or emphasise that to me, it is not only moral and spiritual integrity, but also intellectual integrity.
       1. 

          Kevin Riley

          18 February 2012 at 12:41 am

          Chris

          I take the need for intellectual integrity as a given – it probably comes from way too much time spent in the university environment. Perhaps I shouldn't do so.  I am becoming increasingly frustrated by those in our church who seem to believe intellectual integrity is something we can't afford given the importance of the project in which we are involved.  I like to beleive they are a small minority, but perhaps I am being naive.  The price of 'victory at any cost' is usually complete failure.
          1. 

             cb25

             18 February 2012 at 2:00 am

             Kevin,

             Yes, I think I can identify with that frustration. Just come back from Church where Sabbath School leaves one continually "biting the tougue" to avoid causing a complete storm:(

             Cheers
35. 

    Doctorf

    16 February 2012 at 11:44 pm

    Timo,

    You speak of this improbability that molecules self organize. Yes they do. Reading Hawkings latest book most matter is disorganized and the probability of organization is small. Yet in a universe with infinite amount of matter the rare events occur all without the help of a "god." When you study reactions you have to look at the number of possible products with the given reactants. There is a definable probability that you will see any number of products. These systems also do not need supernatural assistance. 

    CB 25,

    With regards to the universiality of religous belief and spirituality. They are universal because our brains function somewhat alike from person to person. Being able to understand brain functions is not a testimony or evidence of the existence of a god. Mailen uses his "faith" argument for scientists. He knows better. The "faith" in the makers of instruments is hardly a faith without evidence. What we really do is "trust" the engineers and programmers that make the instruments and then we calibrate them ourselves to be certain of their accuracy. In Christianity we are supposed to worship, respect, love, adore etc God.  WHY? God has given humans nothing on which to base this reverance or adoration. Respect of another comes from a realtionship and as far as I know we do not have relationships with invisible gods. The idea of a relationship with god is no more sophisticated than a child having an "imaginary friend."

    In mordern society if anyone runs around saying they get "direct messages" or have "direct communication" with god they will be relegated quickly to the legions of the loons. If we did not have the bible and the "prophets" existed today, we would lock them up and appropriately sedate them.
36. 

    David Geelan

    17 February 2012 at 6:42 am

    //Well, I told you so. The poor need religion, the rich don’t…only certain educated classes think critically. (See what I mean?)//

     

    Did you read what I wrote? At all?
    1. 

       Stephen Foster

       17 February 2012 at 8:22 pm

       Yes, I did, David.
        
       You had written: “There is strong sociological evidence that people tend to cling to religion when the material circumstances of their lives are not secure – when they're not sure where their food and water are coming from, or are in fear of their lives. In situations where life is more secure, religion tends to drift away. These findings have nothing to do with 'should', the just describe what people actually do. It's unsurprising that Adventism is growing among the global poor and waning among the wealthy – the same is true of all other faiths, including Islam.”
        
       Had you read what Elaine wrote?
        
       “The one discrediting factor for continued adherence to a particular religious creed is the questioning and examination of ideas that all higher education should introduce.  Critical thinking is a part of an educated mind and there are no limits to the investigative process.  This can, and has led to great examination of the religious heritage which may have been taught.”
       1. 

          David Geelan

          17 February 2012 at 10:13 pm

          Apologies, Stephen, I was unnecessarily terse. Thank you for responding graciously.

           

          I was careful, you'll note, to include this sentence: "These findings have nothing to do with 'should', the just describe what people actually do." I wasn't sure how you get from there to thinking I was saying "The poor need religion, the rich don’t…"

          The evidence says what the evidence says: but the Bible was way ahead of it anyway. The description of the Laodicean condition is telling: materially, and in their own eyes, 'rich and increased with goods', and spiritually 'wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked'.

           

          The rich *do* need the gospel: and Jesus noted that that's a tough thing. His words to the Rich Young Ruler are a challenge the church has not really taken up much at all – not 'sell everything', necessarily, but 'break the chains your material wealth has on you that are holding you back from what God has in mind'.

          It was Jesus who talked about rich men, camels, heaven and needles' eyes… and our usual 'explaining away' of that as a gate in Jerusalem misses both the humor and the power of what he was saying.

          And here's the sobering part: by world standards, every person who posts on this forum is rich. When Jesus said 'it is hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom', he was talking about *us*.

           

          Within all that, there are some good points made elsewhere in the discussion about solutions, and I'll follow things up there.

           

          But please be assured, the farthest thing from what I was saying was 'the rich don't need the gospel'.
37. 

    Joe Erwin

    17 February 2012 at 1:13 pm

    David G.,

    As one who did read and think about what you wrote, I found much with which I agree.

    In my opinion, much of the appeal and functional value of religion has to do with the promise
    of a better life beyond the present one. Life is hard? Imagine how wonderful heaven will be.
    No more pain or sorrow.

    And what about the rich? Jesus is reported in scripture to say that rich people can hardly
    ever enter the kingdom. It seems to me that the concept may have been that rich people
    usually do not need to have the hope of an afterlife because they have what they need
    in the present life.

    But for religion to thrive in an emergent middle class or an affluent society, it must add
    value and relevance. And, as we see in the urban and suburban megachurches, being
    wealthy is celebrated. The church holds functions as a center of social activity and "good
    clean fun" and often adds formal education–which can primarily serve as a means of
    indoctrination. Within such churches, higher education is often valued, especially as
    a means of elevating income and social status.

    The problem comes when some of the people from such groups get serious about study
    or education in some fields in which they learn critical thinking and encounter information
    and evidence that does not align with what they were taught within their religious tradition.
    Then they change the way they think about the world, religion, God, other people, etc.
    They may stay in the church of their youth or not, and if they do, it may only be because
    they are embedded in the church socially through family and friends.
    1. 

       David Geelan

       17 February 2012 at 10:18 pm

       Excellent points, Joe.

       I think perhaps the missing link might be the ideas of service and sacrifice, taken seriously. Our lives in the West demand little of us in the way of either, but a faith that costs nothing is worth nothing. If our tithes and offerings just build us bigger and nicer social clubs, might as well just turn them into country clubs and be done with it.

       If the church could offer a radical vision of service to others, that would be *far* more attractive to young people – including my own daughters who are 18 and 21 – than an anodyne experience of attending one more lecture, with some irrelevant music.

       Many efforts to retain the young seem to have made church *less* demanding of them, when in my view it needs to demand *more*.

       If we took seriously the Bible's social justice teachings – that we are accountable for the way we treat the poorest and least privileged among us (check out Matthew 25 for Jesus being *very* explicit on this), we would see growth instead of decline.
38. 

    Joe Erwin

    18 February 2012 at 1:58 am

    David G.,

    How about developing a kind SDA Peace Corps? It could focus on practical needs of poor people
    around the world. It would give them a chance to see poverty. It could be modeled on CARE or
    some other organization dealing with health and hunger. It might be best for it to be absolutely
    service oriented, rather than evangelical–doing service, not seeking converts.

    Cross cultural experience is a wonderful teacher. Language skills would be acquired and be
    beneficial for life. I love your "radical vision of service" concept. Real and permanent good
    would be done for those whose needs are addressed, but the consequences for those who
    serve would be immeasurably profound. It might revive the church and restore the faith of
    many–but whether or not that was the outcome, those involved would benefit. There is no
    downside to this concept.
39. 

    Edwin A. Schwisow

    18 February 2012 at 6:43 am

    As one who attends, and enjoys a decidedly "conservative" congregation, I can say that one "problem" traditional Adventists have with intellectuals and postgraduate-type thinking is that they see the educated and the know-it-alls (not my term, theirs in exasperation) as somehow "replacing" the revered supernaturalism of their primitive Christianity with a rational, natural pathway to goodness attainable without Jesus Christ.

    This is very threatening to the devout believer, especially in his or her older years. What one has believed and held to be true for 50, 60, or 70 years is not something to be poured down the drain capriciously! But this is only their perception, not a problem at all, in the right context.

    Personally, I believe the best answers to "how, then, shall we live?" are found in studying and following the personality of one who demonstrably lived a great and noble life—following a "personal leader" seems to be the paradigm for advance followed by every successful civilization for which there is record. Yes, the philosophers enunciated principles and ideals, but ultimately they adhered to a personality, a wise person of oracular veneration, who showed them the way and drew them together to achieve agreed-to goals.

    And within this basic context, most Adventists would agree that the bottom line to Christianity, however you parse its message, is to live more fully in one's temporal span of years, to include as part of one's joyful life the privilege of caring for and encouraging spiritually the needy and weak, and believing in the possibility that the joy we have experienced together here will somehow find continuity beyond our mortal years—this is the "blessed hope."

    I think we all agree to these things, conservatives, moderates, liberals.

    To the extent we all could agree on the centrality of what Christianity is and proposes to do with us, and for us, I believe our children, whatever their personalities and vocations, would find welcome room within that faith, for Christianity addresses universal needs to the core. Perhaps one of the distractions, among Adventists, has been our insistence on emphasizing our uniquenesses, rather than our compatability with the central core of the faith. We have at times distressed and driven away those who sought honest depth in the Faith, and found instead sectarian superficiality concerned more about the properties of health reform than how we should live, as Jesus lived, in our apportioned three-score and ten. Only a determined sociopath will turn his back on a congregation wrestling with such vital questions of "how, then, shall we live?"

    The question of origins is not a trivial one, but the central themes of Christianity do not depend on a decisively one-or-the-other answer. Theologians, yes, are greatly bothered by the question, and perhaps rightly so—this is their field of professional endeavor. But those of us for whom Christianity is a vocation rather than a theory see Jesus as our central motivator and all else in the Bible and in science, for that matter, as ultimately subservient to his example of "how, then, shall we live?". I have yet to meet kids who do not think deeply on these things and will ultimately welcome a mentor and guide with the depth and credibility of the essential Jesus—one who kept the Sabbath and on that day, especially, set an example of how we should live.
    1. 

       Kevin Riley

       18 February 2012 at 9:42 pm

       "As one who attends, and enjoys a decidedly "conservative" congregation, I can say that one "problem" traditional Adventists have with intellectuals and postgraduate-type thinking is that they see the educated and the know-it-alls (not my term, theirs in exasperation) as somehow "replacing" the revered supernaturalism of their primitive Christianity with a rational, natural pathway to goodness attainable without Jesus Christ."

       I don't attend a conservative congregation, nor would I class myself as a conservative, but I also have strong objections to any attempt to replace 'supernaturalism' with any pathway to goodness not based on Jesus Christ.  But any attempt to reduce 'sectarian superficiality' also rates as 'a good thing' in my opinion.  So I agree with you, we really need to develop a religion that focuses on the 'central core of faith' and not only allows, but encourages people – of any age – to develop a strong relationship with God.  Perhaps if we had that ourselves, we would not be so threatened by those who seem to be developing their faith in a way we can't relate to.

       I suspect that it is small groups of laymen, often with an interest in science that exceeds their knowledge of science, who are most insistent that we take a definite stand on origins.  Most theologians seem to have other priorities.  I am with the theologians on this issue.
40. 

    Elaine Nelson

    18 February 2012 at 5:26 pm

    It became a vital part of Adventism to monitor one's behavior and lifestyle as well as that of others.  This was one of EGW's major concerns and adopted by the church and it has been a curse ever since.  Christianity is not demonstrated by one's diet or one's dress or one's attitude toward sabbath, but in practicing the Golden Rule and not acting as judge for anyone.

    These became the unique marks of Adventism:  they go to church on Saturday; they don't eat pork; they eschew jewelry; they do not smoke or drink; they do not go to movies or dance.  Honestly, are these not the distinctive and observable signs that people recognize or look for in Adventists?

    Because these have been religiously taught as of ultimate importance in Adventism, why should anyone be surprised when the long-time Adventists shrink in horror at the "evils" that have invaded their church?  Had Adventists been known for their love for others; their quiet, unassuming way of living without constantly trying to convert other Christians by reminding them they were keeping the "wrong" day and that only Adventists would be in the remnant, would it have made a difference?

    Compare the Mormons:  they are known for their care for their own. When a member needs food, sympathy, care that can be provided, there is always another member to supply that need.  They "care for their own" just as the early church practiced.
    Too often in Adventism were cannibalize our own; are we the most critical of churches for judging and condemning fellow members?
    1. 

       Kevin Riley

       18 February 2012 at 9:34 pm

       Elaine

       Before deciding the Mormons do better than SDAs you perhaps should talk to a few of their members/exmembers who decided to disagree with Mormon orthodoxy.  Being cared for can very much be dependent on accepting Mormon beliefs, or at least not questioning them.  Many in the SDA church have also found the church is good at meeting their needs. 

       You are correct, however, in the accusation that too often we have focused primarily or even exclusively on outward behaviour.  In Australia that has become less of a problem over teh last 50 years or so.  Despite valiant efforts by fans of GYC who set up an Australian version, there is no sign the church in general is prepared to move back to former times.  The church has been fairly tolerant of young people pushing the conservative agenda (long skirts, veganism, and all the usual suspects) without actually moving in that direction.
       1. 

          Doctorf

          03 March 2012 at 1:13 am

          Kevin,

          I agree with your post. My sister in law is Mormon and her son in law is a Bishop. Indeed being "cared for" depends on adherence to mormon doctrine. The do not have a site such as this and are unlikely to engage in such a venture anytime soon. At this point I would rather be an SDA or Ex SDA as for the most part I think I am well tolerated by the church family. That said, I hardly ever get to church its seems. My wife complains that since being married to me she hardly ever attends her Harvest Church on Sundays. I have told her that going to church to sit and listen and meditate is a good thing, just not every week. Its so funny because her church is a KSGN "Jesus Rock" church and I came from the "classical" music tradition as I find it more spiritual. The music in her church makes me feel that I am at a Led Zeppelin concert with religious lyrics. Thus, when it comes to music I would rather listen to Kimo Smith on the organ than the rock and roll of the evangelical worshipers.
    2. 

       Ella M

       25 February 2012 at 4:55 am

       Elaine,
         Again you express an extreme and uncharitable view that stereotypes Adventists.  I challenge that view, both by my own experience and that of others; but primarily asking you to answer the question:  How many Adventists are you talking about?  75%?  50%? 25%?  Much lower than that and you are misrepresenting a large group of people. 
         As for Mormons, I think you would find the same complaints if you had been raised in that atmosphere.  Do they have a site like this to question their church?  If so, I would like to see it.
        
41. 

    Elaine Nelson

    18 February 2012 at 11:28 pm

    Kevin,

    I've read several books by Mormons who have left ("Escaped") from Mormonism and they  are a mind-controlling church.  But, like most churches, there are good and not-so-good members within.

    I'm unaware that it is the scientists in the church who are pushing the clock back on Creation.  It seems that it is the ultra-traditionalists who have been pushing the envelope to make it an "either-or" position.  (See LSU's recent problems).  Who stirred up the problem there? 
    1. 

       Kevin Riley

       19 February 2012 at 6:38 am

       I didn't say it was scientists – I said it was laymen with an interest in science.  It is better not to confuse those two groups.

Comments are closed.