.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
Opinion
Taylor, Ervin
|
Adventists on Darwin and Evolution, Part 2
Submitted: Feb 26, 2013
By Ervin Taylor
Let us remind ourselves of the question posed in Part 1 of this topic. Focusing our attention just on Adventism, the question was and is: “What is it about the Adventist theological tradition that has caused this small branch of Protestant Christianity to reject the ideas embodied in Darwin’s great scientific work?”
We began by noting that the views of early Adventists on this topic were essentially the same as many other American Protestant Christian faith communities of similar background. In the 19th century, there was, with some exceptions, a general rejection of Darwin’s views among the majority of conservative American Protestant bodies. However, by the beginning of the 21st century, a number of these denominations – still conservative in many respects –had modified their earlier views about evolution. We listed several parts of these American faith communities who had adjusted their understandings: Baptist, Church of the Brethren, Congregational, Disciples of Christ, and Presbyterian.
In 2013, many churches holding otherwise quite conservative theological positions were celebrating the “2013 Evolution Weekend.” In light of this, we asked “Why is no Adventist Church celebrating the “2013 Evolution Weekend” to show the compatibility of Christianity and biological evolution? What had most influenced the continuing aversion of traditional, institutional Adventism to reevaluate its original understandings concerning biological evolution?
One might reasonably ask, if Adventism was able to make a major adjustment in its theology in terms of moving from its original Arian position of its founders to a fully Trinitarian position, should it not be relatively simple for it to reconsider the compatibility of its theology and evolutionary biology?
Or if it could move from a “Shut Door” theology to an “Open Door” theology – an 180-degree shift – then what is the problem with reconsidering other positions developed in an earlier time and recasting its attitude toward Darwinian evolution?
Another element to consider is that of all contemporary conservative Protestant traditions, Adventism would ordinarily be expected to have a very positive appreciation of a science-based understanding of how plants and animals have developed over time. Adventism is known for its emphasis on the health sciences and its large educational system which includes many colleges and universities. If one knew nothing about Adventist theological history, an observer might assume that Adventism would be one of those otherwise conservative Protestant faith traditions which would have embraced evolutionary biology.
I will offer two suggestions as to the most important factors that prevented this. The first is how corporate Adventism reacted to the fundamentalist/modernist split in American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The second factor is the ultramontanist role that Ellen White came to assume in traditional, institutional Adventism. I will suggest that the Ellen White magisterium in traditional Adventism has played the most critical role over the long term. It continues to create major problems as Adventism seeks to mature its message and approach to the modern Western world.
In the next segment of this blog on this topic, I will consider the first suggestion. If others have additional proposals as to other factors responsible for the anomalous historic response of Adventism to evolutionary thought, please share them.
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
I recently came across an interesting article on "cognitive dissonance" and "effort justification".
I'm going to stick my neck out (unusual for me!?), and offer another suggestion.
Another reason for our inability to evaluate new light (evolution?) within Adventism has to do with a deep seated psychological "problem".
By way of introduction, let me suggest that it would be extremely interesting to evaluate by research if there is a predominant type of personality that we either attract or retain within Adventism. I suspect there is, and it may have to do with a personality type that desires certainty, truth, being right, and enjoying the sense of "being differerent" that Adventism arguably offers.
Now, having said that, perhaps there is also a deep seated psychology within the very core of our approach to doctrine, particularly prophecy. This article I came across made a link between the theory of congnitive dissonance, the efforts people will go to to resolve dissonance in ways which avoid altering beliefs or losing face.
They demonstrated this link with an example of a UFO Cult back in the 1950's. I'll put the link below.
They point out that when expectations are dashed, or dissonance arises, there is "...a tendency to reduce dissonance by finding reasons for why we have devoted time, effort, or money to something that has turned out to be unpleasant or disappointing." Effort justification. By the end you may also think GRI?
The article then shows how this played out in the Cult. After doing so, the very close similarity to how SDA's responded to the great dissapointment is drawn! Compelling to say the least.
Now, given that SDA's, perhaps especially those in leadership positions where defense against "evolution" is strong, are possibly of a truth/certainty focussed personality type: The ongoing pressure from evolution provides a persistent and chaffing sense of dissonance. However, rather than face this dissonance with integrity, we engage in effort justification. We do this by making our creation position more clear, more rigid, more precise etc.
Perhaps even, in a weird kind of way, resisting evolution is also a part of effort justification regarding EGW! After all, if we adopted a position similar to the other churches you mention, EGW would have to be admitted and exposed as what she probably is: Wrong. And, we cannot do that no matter what the dissonance pain. Put it another way, are we a collective personality that will go to our graves defending our effort of belief and doctrine because we just have too much invested in it?!
Read at your peril - unless you have an open mind:
http://thingsaboutstuff.tumblr.com/post/28875053817/the-sda-investigative-judgment-doctrine-a
Well, I guess the good thing I could say about your comment is that your disrespect was not veiled:)
Now, to avoid the risk of me stereotyping you, because I am tempted to make an assumption that you did not even read the link I posted, I'll ask you instead. Did you?
It was a key part of my points, and I think anyone who wishes to "shred" my thesis/suggestion, and they are welcome to do so, should address the deep issues of personality, and characteristics, and how this may play out in relation to dissonance and effort justification within an SDA "culture". That would at least include reading the link.
The SDA Church does have a culture. For example Stephen Foster has beautifully described below how and why he is a part of that culture, which is also in a wider context, a Christian culture. What he has not yet answered is why this culture has "resisted" evolution, when other Christian cultures have not. I'm just making a suggestion of a possible factor. Intended more to challenge than offend, but it seems I acheived the latter more than the former with you... have a nice day even so...
Cheers
How many statements did Ellen White actually make about evolution? From what I understand - not much. She certainly did not engage in a concerted treatise on the subject, but merely but a few isolated comments. The number of comments is extremely small, especially when one considers the enormity of her writings.
The Church has been pretty comfortable at explaining away other 'unscientific' statements of her, whether it be that masturbation causes cancer, or that England would intervene in the US Civil War, or about almagamation of man and beast. So why not her statements of evolution? The E G White Estate makes very clear that biblical prophets are not scientists, and not there to reveal scientific knowledge, otherwise Isaiah and other prophets would be false when talking about the world being flat, having corners, having a fixed solid dome firmament or being unmoveable in space resting on a pillar.
The situation with the moons of Jupiter provide the perfect escapte clause. If I recall the story, Mrs White had a vision about how many moons Jupiter had (or was it Saturn I forget?) It now turns out in modern science she was wrong. However, what she said convinced Captain Bates, who considered himself quite the astronomer. It is not so different from the Oracle in the movie Matrix, who lies in telling Neo he is not the one, even though he is the one, but where she tells him a falsehood because he hears what he needs to hear at that time - confused?
Regardless of whether one believes in Mrs White's prophetic gift or not, my point is - why is Ellen White such an issue here? Is she the actual underlying reason for not accepting evolution or just the excuse not to accept it?
Is it Ellen White the person or the magisterium of power and orthodoxy - the unbiblical Ellen White myth rather than Ellen White the person and even prophet pursuant to the biblical model of prophethood? Is Ellen White our Papal Peter upon which our Church is built and holds the keys of heaven and hell; thus, abusing Ellen White's and Peter's true intentions and positions in a way they would not have approved of?
I think this is the real underlying reason. I think the Ellen White issue and Sabbath issue, two most commonly cited reasons, are just excuses. Excellent blogs by Jack constantly demonstrate the ability to be a faithful SDA, even a 28-FB believing SDA (that is until Pres Wilson further refines them that is) and accept evolution.
For all the conservative fears of ecumenicalism, it seems we long ago through in our lot with other fundamentalists. Moreover, as you Erv have noted before, we still appear to be in the mode of a sect, and perhaps fearful of taking that next sociological step. The next step indeed has benefits but also failings, so I have some sympathy for those resisting change. However, evolution simply provides a convenient issue to remain our fortress - it is an ideological wall that keeps us separate from the world and now most other Christians.
Thus, perhaps we don't accept scientific biological evolution because in truth we fear our sociological and institutional evolution? Therefore, the SDA Church is against evolution in more than one sense.
I don’t recall reading anything about evolution in any of her writings before my exposure to some of it in this forum. I don’t even recall reading much about whatever she wrote regarding creationism either.
Stephen, pretty much everyone here knows what it is to be a 'dyed-in-the-wool creationist Adventist'. I suspect even those who are now 'dyed-in-the-wool theistic evoltionary Adventists' were until quite recently 'dyed-in-the-wool creationist Adventists'. We all know the culture and arguments of 'dyed-in-the-wool creationist Adventists' because we have all pretty much grown up in an SDA Church which espouses that culture and those arguments. I suspect even our ex-SDA readers know what it is like to be a 'dyed-in-the-wool creationist Adventist' as they grew up in the same Church.
'I don’t recall reading anything about evolution in any of her writings before my exposure to some of it in this forum'
Doesn't that prove my point that perhaps it is not Ellen White per se that is the issue but Ellen White the myth - the Ellen White Magisterium as Ervin describes it?
"I am quite prepared to accept that it [Darwinian Evolution] may be true, though I should personally be sorry if it turned out to be so as its implication is plainly atheistical, and if its truth could be proved, then the truth of atheism could be proved. I believe that is its purpose, and that it is silly to pretend otherwise."
Jack Hoehn is sure that Ellen White recognized this. I am sure that Ted Wilson believes this. And so does Cliff Goldstein. And do does a majority of our church membership. So trying to get Adventism to accept undiluted Darwinian Evolution is a fool's errand.
Adventism and Christianity as a whole can only accept a theistic and creationist version of evolution, not the naturalistic version.
I was not willing to consider Darwinism, until I found intellectually credible challenges to "UNDIRETED" "PURPOSELESS" "RANDOM" "NO NEED FOR GOD" evolution by thoughtful people who redirected me to the reinterpretations of evolution known as Old Earth Creationism (Hugh Ross) or Intelligent Design (Phillip Johnson, John Lennox. CS Lewis, Stephen Meyers) or Bio Logos (Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne).
I find naturalistic evolution scientifically incredible, and theologically destructive.
But I do believe Adventism can form a creationist view of the history of life on earth that combines a long age creation, and directed and purposeful limited evolution of created life, that fits the theological insights of Ellen White in the Great Controversy.
If we can convince our church to permit diversity of opinions beyond Young Earth Creationism, in biological interpretations short of godless evolution, is yet to be determined, although I do believe the weight of evidence demands this. But I urge Dr. Taylor and others to be sensitive to the type of evolution they are expecting Adventism to embrace. The atheistic background of Darwinism and its noisy, angry new atheist proponents is a millstone around its neck, as far as Adventists are concerned.
That's the problem Jack. We make this a simplistic black and white debate. We don't even define these terms properly. We condemn each others view of God and science, even though the people we condemn may not believe in the God or view of science we ourselves claim are flawed and should not believed in!
...good question. How would you answer as a "dyed in the wool..." ?
Jack,
"I was not willing to consider Darwinism, until I found intellectually credible challenges to ....[Godless/naturalistic] evolution." ?
When I read that comment, especially the word "willing", and reflect on it in light of my first comment above, I get a strong sense that you are on an intense journey of "effort justification"? Now it may be that you do in fact find naturalistic evolution incredible, but it also sounds like you have made that assessment from a position that is "unwilling" to entertain any other conclusion anyway. Any other outcome was already impossible.
I find Peter's blog comment above interesting in this light. He would personally be "sorry" if evolution were "proven". I wonder what it would take for him? He also is a person who has much "invested" in it not being "proven".
Have you ever considered how much SDA's have invested in it not being "proven"? As an Adventist, I had a massive amount "invested" in my beliefs being true. I chose to resolve my dissonance by not letting any particular part of my theology make me "unwilling" to consider evidence openly. Sure, you may have done so openly and come to your conclusions, but that little word "willing" worries me:)
Without any doubt, my worldview is partly informed and greatly influenced by this exposure. My worldview is also informed and influenced by the society in which I have lived and by educational and cultural exposures. This is no different than anyone else.
In acknowledgement of those influences on my perspective I believe that God chose to reveal Himself to mankind through Abraham and his descendents and ultimately through Jesus Christ; and has provided for a chronicling and detailing of that revelation—and other things He intended mankind to know—in the Hebrew scriptures and ‘The New Testament.’ Therefore I am persuaded that an uncaused, omnipotent, and benevolent Intelligence designed this world; and created it by speaking it into existence.
Personally, I reason that Homo sapiens is sufficiently different from other creatures in terms of moral and intellectual dimension, and the nature of complexity and/or the complexity of nature, all evidence purposeful and intelligent design.
Clearly, I could go on (and on) about why the Bible, and particularly the redemption narrative and prophecy fulfillment, is credible; but I think you catch my drift.
Agree. Even if evolution is true, human beings are 'post-evolutionary' creatures. We aren't just another animal. As atheist-scientist Steven Hawkings like to say, human beings are the universe made conscious of itself. And as atheist-scientist Richard Dawkins likes to say in his book The Selfish Gene, human beings are the only ones capable of ignoring or overriding our genetic programming, something, he notes, human beings do every time they use contraception.
Even atheist-scientists, who reject notions of supernatural design, have to admit there is something truly remarkable about human beings. For me personally, this is evidence of the claim way back in Gen 1 that human beings whilst made of the same 'stuff' as the rest of our environment, of the same clay, is something special, being made in the divine image.
That is all very good, but when you asked your question above, I kind of imagined you meant in more direct relation to Irvin's question. ie why Adventists "continue" to believe against evolution when other churches have moved in that direction.
I don't think you answered that question. Perhaps I missed your intent in the original question you posed, but that is one I am interested in. Other people in other churches can claim the same sequence of life exposure as you, yet they have "moved with the times", if I can put it that way. As an SDA, and as SDA's why have we not?
Since he is an academic scholar and an anthropologist no less, one would think that he would ask individual creationist Adventists why they believe what they believe prior to rendering, and repeating, such an opinion.
You asked me, as a “dyed-in-the-wool creationist,” why I am a creationist; I think.
I regard your question as to why I think that “Adventists ‘continue’ to believe against evolution when other churches have moved in that direction” as a wonderful set-up (and I mean in a positive sense).
It is only because Seventh-day Adventists “Remember the Sabbath day” as a memorial of the creation week activities of God that they “’continue’ to believe against evolution when other churches have moved in that direction.”
Now is Dr. Taylor suggesting that the only reason that SDAs observe the fourth commandment is because of Ellen G. White? (If so, that’s an entirely different subject.)
I was blessed like all children are with a given view of reality from my culture, but I was not in a boxed Adventism. I was friends with young intellectuals like Jonathan Butler and Noel Johnson and met CS Lewis as an earlyteen, and found it confirmed the essence of my Adventism. I had strong literalist geniuses like Leslie Hardinge, and broad thinkers like Edward Heppenstahl as Bible teachers. I have studied outside Adventism at secular universities, and tested and viewed Adventism in Canada, California, England, South Africa, Lesotho, Zambia, and Walla Walla. I spend my day caring for and entering into the lives of non-Adventists. So my unwillingness to consider unproven and speculative explanations for life was not because I felt I had waisted my life in a narrow commitment to a fable, but my unwillingness to accept something that seemed to me to be even more fabulous, and unlikely--that it happened by itself and that life is purposeless. When I found role models who reinterpreted the data in a way that concorded with what I had spiritually and experientially found to be true and resonated with my experience of life as meaniful and purposeful, I was able to give up my short term chronology of life and a simplistic and unrealistic understanding of the Bible.
I am enough of a student of religion to recognize Darwinism as a competing religion, and I didn't prefer it to mine. But I was able to accept unbiased data, that were previously inaccessable to me when cloked in Darwinism.
Peter Hitchens again to my rescue: "I am perfectly prepared to accept the possibility, dispiriting though it would be, that evolution by natural selection might explain the current state of the realm of nature. It is a plausible and elegant possible explanation. I just think the theory lacks any conclusive proof, is open to serious question on scientific grounds, from which it is only protected by a stifling orthodoxy. "
So now you have a "long creation" theory? How can you call your explanation scientific when science does not employ supernaturalism to explain the natural universe? Inserting God into any explanation explains nothing. There is no apparent god in biological self assembly. You also make the claim that you can validate truth through spiritual and experiential condordance. How do you do that? From the natural record presented in science fantasical places such as a "garden of eden" and "perfection" meaning absence of death just do not wash. These stories do not appear to be literal. Death has always been a part of life. Looking at Ella's post below she believes in a pantheistic god that is both outside of time and inserts itself into our time frame. Both of you are "making up the god you want." Thus, my conclusion is that god is a manifestation of the human cortex because we want to believe that our mortality does not doom us to eternal non-existence. So far no one comes back from the dead. Jesus does not appear to be in any rush to get back here and the Ella's and Jack's and Dr F's of the future will be inventing a new theology to explain why Jesus has not come back in 10,000 or 100,000 yrs.
Related to the topic of the above post, I mentioned that when I began to actually pay attention to geologic and paleontologic evidence (back in the 1960s), I found that it falsified the young earth creation hypothesis I had been taught as fact at home and in SDA schools and college. Philip took issue with my use of the term "falsified," seemingly being both mystified and offended at what he regarded as misuse of a term with a specialized scientific meaning.
I wonder if you would mind commenting on this matter. Perhaps we could also get Mailen Kootsey to do so, and/or Erv Taylor. It seems like the use of the term "falsification" was promoted by Karl Popper as a part of his scientific epistemology, and it seems to me like my use of the term was appropriate not only from the perspective of Popper's scientific epistemology, but from currently accepted scientific use. Am I missing something? I'm an old guy whose knowledge of currently accepted philosophy of science could be outdated, I suppose.
I have been reading many assumptions of why this church does not embrace macroevolution. None of them ring true for me. I would be willing to accept the creation story as symbolic or a metaphor as Jesus did in his parable of the richman and Lazarus when he used a local story to teach--not life after death--but the principle that what we do in this life has to do with what happens in the next.
But it leaves the big question--how can Christ be our salvation from death when it existed before sin? How could God have used death to create? This is the tiger in the room for a theistic evolutionist. It just doesn't work!
I don't understand the use of "old-earth" and "young-earth" terms. It's confusing, because in the graduate courses of religion I took in the 70s, it was taken for granted that the earth was very old. I remember reading an article in The Advent Review from the 1800s where a writer stated that he believed the earth to be here before the creation week. That has always been my understanding. Now I see the use of YEC a lot here, and it doesn't fit. It would be ridiculous to think the whole universe came into being on creation week. And it had to be more than 6,000 years ago--even a history of the Bible and how geneologies were written would deny that. It could have been 40,000 human years ago.
There is no biblical statement to the time nor the length of days. I would not like to see a fundamental belief that added things that are not in the Bible. I suspect the 6,000 is symbolic. We don't even know how time works for Someone outside of time. We assume a lot for even the brightest humans.
I read science and liked science-fiction for many years. I can't deny the existence of fossils that indicate life has been around a long time, but we don't know how to interpret this in the worldview of God's creation and salvation story. There could have been another creation. I don't see the value of trying to fit our God into an evolutionistic creation, however.
- One day the SDA Church rejecting YEC and accepting the theory of evolution.
- One day the SDA Church rejecting YEC but not accepting any theory of creation.
- One day the SDA Church having no position whatsoever on any theory of creation, leaving it open to individuals to decide for themselves.
There is a very big difference the SDA Church saying you must be an YEC to be an Adventist (which is effectively the GC's position through Goldstein and Wilson), compared with saying one is and remains an SDA who believes in YEC but that it isn't an 'essential' or 'salvation' issue that should be test of membership.Bullets 1 and 2 express the same concept with different words
- “One day the SDA Church rejecting YEC and accepting the theory of evolution”.
- “One day the SDA Church rejecting YEC but not accepting any theory of creation”.
the 3th bullet. how many theories of creation are there?“One day the SDA Church having no position whatsoever on any theory of creation, leaving it open to individuals to decide for themselves”.
I read the SS, which the global study guide for the SDA church. This was the statement shared to the global by the author and the editor “ When the earth was first brought into existence, it was unsuitable for life. The Bible says nothing about the time period between the original creation of the rocks and water and the creation of the environment and the creatures. Some scholars think it might have been immediately; others that it may have been after a long period of time. The simple fact is, we don’t know, nor does it really matter”
Sorry, dot point 1 and 2 don't say the same thing. They are all different options, but slightly different.
Dot point 1 suggest the very unlikely scenario that the SDA Church officially renounced YEC and officially embraced as an official doctrine theistic evolution, or more appropriately one particular theory of theistic evolution. That suggestion is highly unlikely. It is like saying the SDA Church formally teaches we should drink Coke and are forbidden to drink Pepsi and now instead says we are forbidden to drink Coke and must now drink Pepsi.
Dot point 2 suggests the highly unlikely scenario that the SDA Church officially renounced YEC but did not officially embrace any new position on origins. In this option, the SDA Church officially admits and teaches that YEC is not a viable option but leaves up a range of alterantives, including: old earth creation, intelligent design, cosmic temple view, fiat view, naturalist neo-evolution and a range of other possible options. In this option the SDA Church says we no longer have to drink Cok, are no longer forbidden to drink Pepsi but are forbidden from drinking Coke.
Dot point 3 suggests a position where the SDA officially accepts nothing, endorses nothing and rejects nothing. In this option the SDA Church says we can drink whatever we like - nothing is forbidden and nothing is recommended.
'My formation is in “hard sciences”'
Sorry my background is in Law. I make a living by pedantic word plays.
What will be the benefit if some day the SDA church accepts the theory of evolution or any alterative that you wrote?
Many, when they find themselves incapable of measuring the Creator and His works by their own imperfect knowledge of science, doubt the existence of God and attribute infinite power to nature. These persons have lost the simplicity of faith, and are removed far from God in mind and spirit. There should be a settled faith in the divinity of God’s holy Word. The Bible is not to be tested by men’s ideas of science, but science is to be brought to the test of this unerring standard. When the Bible makes statements of facts in nature, science may be compared with the written Word, and a correct understanding of both will always prove them to be in harmony. One does not contradict the other. All truth, whether in nature or revelation, agrees (The Signs of the Times, March 13, 1884).
Why then is it that the gap between the current SDA "correct understanding" of the "unerring standard", and how science suggests we interpret nature, is an ever widening grand canyon?
Is this not Irvin's question from another angle. Other churches appear to have followed science and somehow re-interpreted their "unerring standard". Have they in fact "correctly understood" the standard, and we have not? Or are they up the creek, or should I say canyon, without a paddle!?
Or, is it us who are up the canyon without a paddle? Does this say something about the way we "view" the "unerring standard"? Perhaps our worship of the author of your quote is such that we will never be able to interpret the standard on its own merits anyway? Its openness to flexibility of interpretation always held ransom to century old ink.
Our lastest Science is nothing compared to Gods... 1 Corinthians 13:12 when it comes to how the heavens and earth were created in faith I must go by His Word.
Speaking of paddles "spare the rod spoil the child", "centuries old ink" was not talking about fishing....
When men exalt their own theories above the Word of God, intelligence can accomplish greater harm than ignorance. Thus the false science of the present day will prove sucessful in preparing the way for way for acceptance of the papacy, as did the witholding of knowledge in the dark ages. Here To Forever pg.350
And perhaps some call Adventist tradition "God's word". Begs the question, how often was such Adventist "tradition" discovered outright wrong?
Irony at times that that which some would have us go back to never existed!
Infinitude (as well EGW) suggest Truth (and our ability to apprehend it) is progressive. What then is regression?
David, are you criticising the SS here? The Bible isn't clear how long the period was between Gen 1:1,2 and Gen 1:3. God, who created the universe out of nothing ex nihilo in Gen 1:1-2, created heaven itself and a formless void of earth. And this was all before time in our own solar system began with the first day in Gen 1:3.
So how long was heaven and the formless earth around before the first day of Gen 1:3? Obviously it was long enough for Satan to rebel and to for him to tempt the other words. The Bible and SOP suggest as much. It really could have been billions of years. There are countless articles in the GC's Biblical Georesearch Institute which make this point.
Do you have a problem with that teaching and if so why? Adventists have never taught that God created the entire universe on the first day of creation. We have always taught, as far as I know, that many other worlds were created before ours, and that the events of Lucifer's rebellion all occured before our own creation.
There are other steps to take. Our administrators and some theologians warn that these next steps lead to damnation, and atheism. Other Christians and some of us Adventists say they lead to the truth, and salvation of Christianity from irrelevance.
The next step is to realize that the same evidence that convinces us the rocks are old, also shows evidence of created life forms being old, and obviously living and dieing long before the creation of Adam and Eve. Not just 1 or 2 twentyfour hour days before, but perhaps millions and billions (up to 4.6 Bya) of years before. This is " the rocks are old, and so is created life" position. This is what I call Old Earth Creationism, as opposed to the Young Earth Creationism that covers both the "young rocks, young life" and the "old rocks, young life" versions. Ella, does this explain that to you?
This next step requires us to accept that Moses who was well educated in Egyptian cosmology, was reformatting the science of his day to show a different Creator with a different character than their Creator myths suggested.
This requires us to accept that the Holy Spirit speaking through Moses was giving us an outline of creation, or an analysis of creation, not a chronology of creation. This requires us to accept that the Sabbath is itself a creation for our benefit and is a memorial of creation, not information on the chronology of creation. It remembers the 6 days of creation, but does not tell us how long or when those Great Days were.
Adventist theology is uniquely fit to explain this next step in the context of the Great Controversy, and to explain creation as a continuation of the battle between Light and Darkness started with the planning for the creation of earth, continued during the creation of earth as a home for man, and then prolonged by man's choice to know evil from the inside.
The cross is the key that unlocks the mystery of iniquity, and shows how God redeems not by making a perfect world, but by coming to a planet in rebellion and submitting to the wages of sin, and making a dark world lighter, a not so good world better, and finally by His own unselfish death conquering death.
Evolution doesn't show us where things came from, it shows us how created things adapt and adjust to a universe in a time of war. It may also show us how humans and angels can and have manipulated the creation.
I am not asking for Adventists to all take these steps. I am just asking for a church with freedom to have a doctrine of creation that fits both the evidence from Nature and the insights from Holy Scriptures. This is not done by making our fundamental beliefs support only YEC.
Yet, plausibly salvation by intellect is defacto condition of the church, given the programs and seminars and DVD's and teachings and myriad of nuanced doctrines. And given actual growth numbers, relevance, and overly weighted aging demographic/absence of young and professional intellectuals (as well seeming dearth of the moderates), something is clearly not working. I keep intimating references to head-heart-hand triunity of humanity...we seem to sort of present the deeds and doctrines passably, but apparently miss it on the third chord, of identity. Love the lord thy God (as well thy neighbor and thyself) with all thy hand and head and heart. The temple/sanctuary seems to mirror this tri-unity...but this blog is not the place for me to veer further into the ditch. I'm sure someone will help push my donkey into a ditch even today!
Joe, is not your perspective about your rejection of most (if not all) of your faith origins an intellectual rejection based on (lack of) intellectual integrity within this faith community? I for one agree and find some merit that we have mischaracterized God and his "Truth" quite badly, having a form of Godliness but lacking the power thereof. I have questioned, but not rejected...many here fear to even question, sadly. Such will have difficulty sharing the real nature and motivation for their beliefs.
Great in the eyes of sinful, fallen men who admire those who have a tendency to minimize and ignore Scripture and the power of Almighty God, or great in the eyes of the Lord?
Compatibility? According to who: the Bible or the opinions of those who have chosen to do their science apart from the opinions of the one who established the fundamentals of true science and genuine truth and knowledge?
Nic,
"...apart from the opinions of the one who established the fundamentals of true science...." How do you know what Gods "opinions" are with regards to "true science"? The bible is packed with stories and scant on explanation of phenomena that we can now explain with using the scientific method. It appears to me god did not give us to much insight in to what "god himself calls real science."
The Adventist decision to accept the unbiblical doctrine of the Trinity was not based on sound hermeneutical scholarship!
And if the Holy Ghost is telling the church to expand their limited understanding of Creation, to open our little narrow views of the chronology and mechanism of creation to a bigger more honest understanding, we hold to our past understandings at our peril, at the church's peril, and at the world's peril who needs the church's witness on so many more important issues than how God created this earth. That the Trinity created heaven and earth is vital, how they created is still up for debate. And holding on to ignorance on this is no small sin either.
I am unwilling to call your symbolic “interpretation” of the Genesis creation narrative sinful. How do you now come to the conclusion that a literal “interpretation” of what God Himself said He did is less honest and perilously (dangerously?) ignorant and/or sinful; in juxtaposition to your speculative symbolic “interpretation”?
Who is being intolerant here, in reality? Apparently you are convinced that the Spirit of God is leading you to interpret what God said that He did symbolically; and I believe we should respect this. You should accept and respect that some of your fellow Seventh-day Adventists do not agree with you about this; at all.
Now, if the Holy Spirit is telling us, through you, that God did not create this world “in six days;” then you/someone should be provided with scriptural proof of precisely what the six days represent.
In lieu of such proof, I will scontinue to believe what God Himself said.
-----------
What then is progressive? Force fed Evolution Theory being passed as truth? That to me is in itself 'regression'. Adventists attending an Evolution Weekend shindig is anything but progressive. Adventism isn’t throwing the biology baby out with the bath water: It is just throwing out the primordial soup concerning origins. Evolution is the monkey on the back of biology (courtesy of Mr Darwin and crew) especially in terms of origins; it is this that is not on the table here. It uses biology to entrench its belief system in the hearts of man. I foresee that many will leave Adventism (as many have done) as a result of indoctrination which is termed progressive. Agnosticism and Atheism were around long before Adventism. Going back to that is regressive in my opinion. Evolution Theory speeds up the process towards Atheism in the garb of Agnosticism.
A true ‘believer’ in evolution theory will 1] Reject the Flood, 2] Reject Creation ex-nihilo, 3] Reject God, 4] Reject Religion, 5] Reject Christ, 6] Reject the Resurrection, 7] Reject the Judgement, 8]Reject the Second Coming, 9] Reject God’s Law, 10] Reject the Sabbath. How can I make these assumptions? Answer: because Evolution Theory poses as a priori science. Evolution Theory hijacks the phenomenal hardwired processes found in the living organisms of nature and its fascinating ability to adapt; and argues it as a no-God no-Creation alternative: Philosophy at its best (worst?). I’m seeing another road to Rome here and as one can clearly see many denominations are taking this road as mother has done so herself. Now some Adventists want our mainline Protestant Evangelical Church to regress and call that regression progress.
Christians who tout Evolution are really back-sliding Evolutionists.
Perhaps Mr/Mrs 22/1844/Oct misunderstands and intentionally misuses quotes, here on the boards as well from elsewhere. At least I hope it is intentional, or it would be truly a shame.
I suspect he/she is discomfitted by the thought that if Truth is infinite, he cannot contain it all-or claim to.
Please refrain from such gross distortions. Your intentioned effort is entirely illegitimate as well egregiously noncontextual. It might be these sort of twisted quotes themselves are responsible for the dwindling numbers and growing irrelevance of our shared faith community.
There is a way forward, and it does not involve a deeper hole for us to put our collective heads into, despite what some would desire us to regress to.
One wonders how does God weigh the merits between a loving evolutionist vs unloving creationist.
Second, does an old earth view actually support a more grace filled God, a God who strived with his first prodigal for -gasp!- B I L L I O N S of years, giving lucifer all the opportunities possible to "prove his fitness" to sit on creation tribunal. After all, the risk to God was not just lowly and insignificant puny man, a creature not yet in existence,and even now just a newcomer on the scene in the grand scheme of things. But tradition dictates anthropomorphic man makes himself the very center in some theological flat earth society sort of fashion, elevating self while standing on the bones and fossils of evidence he denies.
Any attempt to label my view as non-creationist is categorically rejected. But I suspect smug expedient hubristic rubric cannot fathom the progressive nature of an infinite truth (unlike your favorite source of quotes who did apparently) relative to the somewhat less infinite nature of the mind of man.
Why would anyone—especially on these boards—, who disagrees with that perspective, assume and/or suggest that it is from not loving?
It is possible to register and post disagreements with what someone in this forum has written without suggesting that the person with whom you disagree is deficient in character or love, or any such thing. (Perhaps that should be rephrased question form.)
IS IT POSSIBLE, Mr Foster, to register and post disagreements with what someone in this forum has written without suggesting that the person with whom you disagree is a CARD CARRYING EVOLUTIONIST or somehow NOT A "TRUE" ADVENTIST????
I believe these two posts are strong evidence it, sadly, is not. Not unsurprising, sir, that you cluster onto this conversation. You also ignored the premise that 1844 completely ignored in my purposeful post above, directed somewhat humurously at A4H. My question to you; why such personalization? Whats your dog in this ring?
That evidence of something which evolution begins to describe abounds under our feet is unarguable. That there is no "thus saith" to quote from to deny the abundant evidence is discomfitting to many, and so the machinations and contorted theological calisthenics begin-and they begin by creating a diversion and attack. "You are a DARWINIST!" is the rallying cry...(i do not hear Jesus voice in this mix, at all)
Let me restate this to clarify for the myopic and those stricken by presbycusis:
evolution as a process, undeniable.
Evolution as answer to origins?
Favorite red herring and miscaricaturization employed by far too many in my faith community.
I am neither touting "Evolutionism" (seems to be a favored schism used to divorce people from my faith community), nor am I debating against creationism (but neither do I worship "Creationism")
Unlike you, Mr Foster, I do believe that the evidence for evolution as a process may indicate a ruthless Grace and a more merciful God than my faith community is prepared to admit. Or reflect. How many more (billions?) years must a timeless God wait on mere man?
I apologize for my incivility; it has drained every ounce of the minute amount of grace that I had to avoid being even more uncivil. I suspect if we truly comprehended the flood of Grace God has abundantly and without merit showered on humanity, we could all go home...instead of harpooning each other with our pitiable little sticks. Please forgive me. And lets go fishin' sometime; leave the cleanin' to the Creator.
My “dog in this ring” is that, like 22oct1844, I am an Adventist who subscribes to creationism; so I relate/empathize. Since when is it inappropriate to join in a conversation in this forum?
The fossil evidence that you and others deem “unarguable” have obviously been argued, if not explained (in terms of The Flood); and by others more capable than I.
I certainly have not labeled you an evolutionist or a Darwinist; and neither has 22oct1844. Why is it considered a pejorative, if not an epithet, for a proponent of evolutionary theory to be termed or labeled an evolutionist?
Why apologize or ask for forgiveness (for incivility) after writing and reviewing what one has written—before ‘Add Comment’? Unlike spoken words, written and digital words can be taken back prior to sending.
To paraphrase Rodney King, we can get along if we refrain from impugning the characters of those with whom we disagree. We each have a long way to go. At least we share that commonly; and apparently agree about God’s sufficient grace!
My “dog in this ring” is that, like 22oct1844, I am an Adventist who subscribes to creationism; so I relate/empathize. Since when is it inappropriate to join in a conversation in this forum?
The fossil evidence that you and others deem “unarguable” have obviously been argued, if not explained (in terms of The Flood); and by others more capable than I.
I certainly have not labeled you an evolutionist or a Darwinist; and neither has 22oct1844. Why is it considered a pejorative, if not an epithet, for a proponent of evolutionary theory to be termed or labeled an evolutionist?
Why apologize or ask for forgiveness (for incivility) after writing and reviewing what one has written—before ‘Add Comment’? Unlike spoken words, written and digital words can be taken back prior to sending.
To paraphrase Rodney King, we can get along if we refrain from impugning the characters of those with whom we disagree. We each have a long way to go. At least we share that commonly; and apparently agree about God’s sufficient grace!
Of course, Stephen. So you innocently enough joined 1844 in his lapse of logic.And of course you cannot be wrong, either in your demeanor or content. I defer to you.
I suggested to A4H that truth is progressive, and failure to go forward, whether static or via regression, does truth disservice. So sorry you waltzed in innocent, haplessly triangulating and personalizing, and got your knickers figged up.
Not entirely clear why, Stephen, when I asked 1844 a question, to wit; "One wonders how does God weigh the merits between a loving evolutionist vs unloving creationist." your predictable compunction to so chivalrously come a sniping at me, as if I callled you-or 1844 "unloving". Not only do you fail to discuss the question, you slip back to appearing distinctly divisive. I've never been known to say you, sir, are not pugnacious, but perhaps I recognize that outwardly, as I've tried hide it inward.
Like I said, we were given an invitation to be fishers of men, not fissures.
Beware; another apology forthcoming, and I'll apologize for it now.
Should I keep my head bowed low, for yours?
Nevertheless I recommend that we not judge the character of fellow forum participants, or fellow believers, or those with other opinions.
Rich, Stephen. Very rich, clutching Corsons leash. Somehwere, deep down, I suspect (and pray) you do have a clue.
So something I wrote above is perceived as judging you.
So I shall avoid saying "tough", or 'amen'.
Nevertheless, please forgive me for so being perceived as daring judge or discomfit you.
And forgive me for missing your apologies. Perhaps I was still bowed low?
Now, might I direct you back to the question and engage you on it-the purpose of these boards-if it is possible; do you believe God loves a creationist who is perceived unloving, or perhaps an evolutionist who is loving? Is creationism a fruit of the spirit? And do you (hopefully unlike 1844) understand I am a creationist, or is it easier to be divisive if you believe I am an evolutionist? Be careful with your answer-you have historically used many things as justification for divisions, including politics and race.
Another question directed at you; do you believe God's grace towards his only lost sheep (lucifer, originally) only spanned 4000 pre-cross years? To a God with eternity to spend-with his character and governance questioned-and infinity to lose to sin-would such a God go to the extremes of the parables in the Gospels, tirelessly seeking the one lost one? Are 4000s years sufficient to prove to eternity that he was fair? And if he gave far more time (perhaps billions of years?) to that first prodigal, perhaps the evidence of life far older than that might actually corroborate his Grace and Love.
Circular logic that says a flood 6000 years ago answers that question cannot suffice. This shuts the door on infinite and ruthless grace no less than, say, my failure to include anyone in my faith community, or the larger Kingdom. This failure of grace i exhibit, even here on these boards, this failure I am not alone doing. Not that it justifies it-and so I ask for your grace, too.
Reflecting a God of grace...this seems to be a better image to project, one which I am deeply flawed reflecting.
I believe that God loves everyone; and loves everyone equally.
“Is creationism a fruit of the spirit?”
No. As I read Galatians 5:22, 23, I don’t see “creationism” listed among them.
“And do you (hopefully unlike 1844) understand I am a creationist…”
If you say so; who am I to say otherwise?
“…or is it easier to be divisive if you believe I am an evolutionist?”
An evolutionist happens to believe somewhat differently than someone who is not an evolutionist.
“Be careful with your answer-you have historically used many things as justification for divisions, including politics and race.”
Politics and race occasionally do divide people; as does theology.
“Another question directed at you; do you believe God's grace towards his only lost sheep (lucifer, originally) only spanned 4000 pre-cross years?”
I have absolutely no idea what period of time God’s grace was extended to Lucifer; and neither does anyone else.
“To a God with eternity to spend-with his character and governance questioned-and infinity to lose to sin-would such a God go to the extremes of the parables in the Gospels, tirelessly seeking the one lost one?”
It would certainly seem that God would, and has, “[gone] to the extremes of the parables in the Gospels,” to seek and save one that is lost. (I am not clear what this has to do with Lucifer however.)
“Are 4000s years sufficient to prove to eternity that he was fair?”
Since we have no earthly idea, and have no way of knowing, how long it had taken from the inception of Lucifer’s rebellion to Calvary; to what point is the 4,000 years? It isn’t the time frame that’s important, but the suffering and dying is what proved He is/was fair, from my perspective. (Besides, angels function within a different ‘matrix.’) In our lives, He proves that He’s fair in less than 100 years anyway.
As you may have noticed, I really think it is best to avoid speculation about that which we cannot possibly know.
Joe, sadly this has been the pattern within my faith community, as I see it.
And perhaps I have unwitting fueled the fire.
Adventist McCarthyism...on whatever distinctives we choose. There have historically been manifold and remain diverse (WO, LGBT, etc etc, ).
This just happens to be the "ism du jour", one in which we have denominationally seemingly invested all (and not insignificant tithe money).
...and Creator God weeps.
"If those who call themselves by my name...I will heal their land"
Not lost on me, "land" is not a denominational nor nationalistic geographic promise.
No, land is "the unshakeable (faith) we stand on". And that is clearly broken, and healing needful.
If, truly, "we are healed by his stripes", why are we cutting each other?
I must, also confess my appreciation for 22/18844/Oct and Mr Foster.
They have both made me again realize how I have far I have yet to go, and fast the daylight fades....
Thank you kindly - Sir, for your diplomacy in handling the matter above and for your sensible response. I wouldn’t have handled it well as you so I guess I owe you one. Mr Onjukka’s reaction to my comments (on virtually anything) is rather predictable so I’m really not sure whether a response from me would have sufficed.
At this point, since a dog fight was implied - I will let sleeping dogs lie.
I’m just a simple man with nothing much to my name, accept that I am an Adventist, who, like you, and most of our church, is not convinced with the arguments in favour of evolution as the ‘best possible scientific explanation’ for our existence whilst it (evolution) hides under the skirts of legitimate biology without satisfying the stringent requirements of sound empirical scientific method. There is undeniably a major meta-physical component to evolution theory which I believe is anti-God, anti-Christ and anti-Bible. To me evoltuion theory is an either/or decision and that it is not compatible at all with a biblical worldview.
I believe that Evolution Theory is not in harmony with the teachings of the Holy Bible and I am not convinced otherwise by it. I certainly don’t support it being preached to kids in schools and passed off as a priori science especially because of the miracles (like the sudden arrival of new species myth and also that of non-living organisms coming to life on their own through natural processes). Then there is the baseless denial of intelligent design, even in terms of remarkable DNA suddenly arriving on the scene and having with it evidence of intelligent coding. Then there is the doctrine of ‘luck’ involved in attributing our arrival and survival through a cycle of millions of years of death and life (or is it life and death?), by natural selection processes only, giving rise to a shared common ancestry with primates. I must admit that I am rather prudent when it comes to doctrine, especially the ‘every wind of doctrine’ kind that some thrive on.
By all means they can call me non-progressive and a rube for not being so gullible in this regard and for not blindly accepting a wishy-washy theory which goes against my faith; or perhaps for my lack of logic in not accepting such a lie: I can honestly live with that.
As many things do, your saying that you may owe me one puts me in mind of a line from one of my favorite movies “The Godfather,” when the Marlon Brando character (Vito Corleone) says to Bonasera, “Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day, consider this...”
(As a youngster, my Dad frequently told me that I knew too much useless information.)
----------------
So I’m not from the soup, of the primordial kind,
It’s what I believe, its intelligent design;
The Omnipotent one, ex-nihilo He made,
A wonderful world, just like the Bible has said.
It’s hard to believe, I know it it’s not pleasing,
But the myth of evolution, is really deceiving;
So I’m a thorn in the side, of evolution today,
I’m a child of a King, Jesus made it that way!
I said a few words, and now I got me some scorn,
Wasn’t expecting much else – for saying it’s wrong;
Some like to think, evolution is cool,
But I’ll go with Creation, You can call me a fool.
I’ve got more faith in, in the strength of my King,
Than any of ancient, evolutionary dating;
Sin before death is what is being said,
In the holy book’s pages, now that’s what I’ve read.
Death before sin, why? That's so unkind,
To make God look unfair and oppressing mankind;
No - He made it all good, That's what I can say,
The Omipotent One, has shown us the way.
There’s no doubt about it, I’m a believer in Him,
Who created this whole world, before there was sin;
I see His great power, in the heavens above,
I see His great mercy, on the cross, His great love.
"ex-nihilo he made..." How do you know that? What experimental design can you use to falsify that statement? If you cannot it sounds like nothing more than a faith statement, explains nothing and does not help us understand how heavenly bodies come into and go out of existence. Your poem while clever does not alter the course of scientific inquiry. If after a vascular injury such as stroke how would you suggest I explain changes in vascular blood vessel phenotype which alters the clinical outcome of a stroke? Would you have me use the scientific method or would you have me say "god does it"? I am afraid god will not assist in this endeavor. Thus as a scientist I am stuck with the real hard work of trying to figure out which genes get turned on and off. With that knowledge we can intervene and modulate gene expression so as to help those who suffer a stroke have a better outcome and quality of life. Thank heavens for modern science and genomics. If a stroke victim waits on god to deal with these issues they will either be dead or be living vegetables.
Then again, if we know nothing else, we know that there can be profound differences within the same denomination; don’t we?
Of course, it just may be that I don’t understand the slight differences that you have or that there really is no difference in what you are saying.
The point is that there appear to be differences in the interpretation of information. Then again, that’s from a layman’s perspective.
Let us sit together in peace and be
gentle with each other in our dialogues.
We will likely believe whatever we do,
unless some information comes along
that changes our view.
Please understand, 22, that I wish you no harm.
You are not a fool or regarded a rube.
Choosing love and mercy is constructive and warm.
Regardless of what we regard as actual and true,
we are here, amid great complexity, beauty, and mystery.
I have to be me and you're free to be you.
The Divinity and pre-existence of Jesus Christ should not be confused with the doctrine of the Trinity. The first is well established in Scripture; the second one is not!
If you reject the Trinity, do you instead subscribe to some form of Arianism?
Jesus was quoting the following Old Testament passage:
New International Version
"See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared."
Are you ready to elevate a created angel to the position of third member of the Godhead?
Who then is Jesus Christ? In John 8:58-59 He doesn't merely call Himself a pre-existent angel, but using Yahweh's own transcendant name - I AM.
John 1:1-3 clearly says the Logos is both with God but also was God. It doesn't say the Logos became God. Moreover, it says the Logos was God in the beginning, which is an illusion to Gen 1:1, in the beginning before creation of heaven and earth.
And what about texts such as Phil 2:6, noting Christ was in the form of God and equal with God? How could Christ be a mere created being, even some lesser deity or god, if he is described as equal with God?
I agree we don't really understand the Trinity concept and never will, but I equally struggle how one can merely say Christ is not of the Godhead of the same substance as the Father. Moreover, I think we confuse that notion of equality of substance with notions of relational subordination, where Christ deliberately lowed His equality status as explained by Paul in Phil 2:7? He confuse the notion that Christ was begotten not made.
How do you see it Nic?
Sorry about the omission. Somehow verse 21 got omitted from my post:
New International Version (©1984)
"See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him." [Ex. 23:20-21]
Both Matt 12:31 and Ex. 23:20-21 are talking about the unforgivable sin. I conclude that Jesus was actually citing the Old Testament. The Bible describes his angels as Spirits. This means to me that the angel of the Lord and the Holy Spirit are synonymous. When the reference is to a visual image, the angel of the Lord is used; but when the influence of said angel is felt but not seeen, then the H.S. is used. There is much more I could tell you, but I don't want to tire you!
We almost agree about the identity and pre-existence of Jesus Christ, except for the hierirchical nature of the Godhead. God the Father is above all, including Jesus Christ.
Stephen, the Trinity doctrine was fabricated out of thin air in the third and fourth centuries AD. There is no firm basis for it in the Bible. Jesus Christ had no beginning. He was begotten when he took his human form. Jesus never aspired to take God the Father' place in heaven. The Deity is made up of God the Father, who is above all, and Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is the invisible manifestation of God's presence. Whenever said presence is visible, the Bible uses the "Angel of the Lord" expression instead of "Holy Spirit." Read Revelation 1:1. The revelatory chain is crystal there: God=>Jesus Christ=>the Angel=>John. The Holy Spirit is not even mentioned. The same can be said about what we find in the book of Daniel. Read chapter 10:21. The HS is again absent from the revelatory experience. After his lobbying experience in the Persian court, the Angel Gabriel explains that there was nobody to assist him except Michael. Read John 14. The HS there is there identified with the invisible prssence of Jesus Christ. Read Psalm 139:7, the HS is identified there with God's invisible presence. This is the correct way of interpreting said verse if we consider that in Hebrew poetry, repetition is an integral facet of it.
However, the issue of the Trinity is a hot debate within Adventism today, especially within Australia. As I understand it, it is a big issue on the East Coast, and even at Avondale College.
As to mere theoretical conjectures about invisibilities - isn't that most of the discussions here? Doesn't that include debates about the existence of God itself?
"Why is no Adventist church celebrating the '2013 Evolution Weekend' to show the compatibility of Christianity and biological evolution?"
Erv - you pose both of these questions in your blog, and it seems to me that they are two rather different questions. The first question is implicitly value laden and tends to either send one scurrying to find pathology, or puts one on the defensive, depending on one's assumptions. The fact that something is a "great scientific work" doesn't make its ideas authoritative. After all, wasn't the Ptolemaic theory also a great scientific work? Darwin's great work consisted more of well-reasoned speculation, based on observation, than of proven fact built on falsifiable scientific experimentation.
The very unfinished house of Darwin has been torn down and remodeled many times by science. Why do even the curators of Darwinism reject many of the ideas embodied in his great works? In their rejection of natural selection and random mutation, Adventists are, I would submit, anything but a "small branch of Protestant Christianity." Perhaps Adventists reject Darwinism as a belief system for the same reason that evolutionary biologists reject I.D. Adventists don't have a quarrel with science per se. But they see Darwinism for what it has been - a highly politicized slippery slope toward a totalistic thought system that rejects reality or wisdom beyond its own epistemological methods. Evolutionary biologists don't have a quarrel with mathematics, probability and statistics. They just see I.D. as a slippery slope toward a totalistic theocratic thought system that rejects science.
Your second question, Erv, begs a more basic question: In what sense are Christianity and evolution in fact compatible? Richard Dawkins doesn't think they are. Apparently, Erv, you do. Is I.D. or theistic evolution compatible with evolutionary biology, as you define it? If you accept the doctrine of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), then isn't it nonsensical for either evolutionary biology or Christianity to be considering the question of compatibility? And if so, isn't Evolution Weekend primarily reflective of a Stockholm Syndrome among a few clerical intellectuals, who have been taken captive by the postmodern Zeigeist?
It seems rather ridiculous to me that people of faith have an Evolution Weekend. You imply, Erv, that it is a grand occasion, widely honored by a broad spectrum of conservative faith traditions. This is simply not true. Only a relative handful of congregations actually noted the weekend - and I doubt that any of them were mainline conservative evangelical churches. Perhaps in a follow-up blog you might want to ask why it is that evolutionary biologists don't celebrate a "Christian Weekend" to demonstrate how the great work of Darwin is compatible with the great teachings of Christianity.
Somewhere you asked me about my assertion that I do not see that design requires a designer. I think you are correct that the term "design" may imply the existence of "a designer," and I suspect that those who designed the term "intelligent design" used that term for that reason. I'm just saying that when "apparent design" or "discernable regularity" occurs in nature it really is not necessarily "design" in the sense that indicates that such a pattern was devised and created by an intelligent mind. In some cases, such regularities can be a consequence of the inherent properties of their constituents. There really are natural patterns in the sense of templates--which we also tend to think of as intentional designs. Of course, we could go off into endless dicussions about "emergent properties," and yada yada yada, but we've been there before.
I looked around to see if I could refer you to someone else who thinks, as I do, that discernable regularities in nature do not necessarily imply that those regularities were designed in by an intelligence. I see that Francisco Ayala, who makes claims for science and religion not needing to be at odds, has written a piece, probably available on line, called "Design without a Designer." You might enjoy reading some of his work, if you haven't already. He is at UC Irvine. Maybe you and Erv should invite him over for Sabbath School sometime at Loma Linda.
Yes, we all should be humble about our dogmas and sensitive to evidence. Thanks for understanding.
Excellent question! It made me smile!
Surely Erv, you have some thoughts about these issues beyond quibbling over the felicitousness of my "house of Darwin" metaphor. I really would like to know whether you think Christianity and evolutionary biology, as you understand those terms, are compatible. Exploring this question would afford a wonderful opportunity for you to turn the tables on me, and infuse words like Christianity with whatever meaning will validate your conclusion. lol
I have been objecting to this random vision of evolution for more than 35 years. I have had plenty of heated arguments with evolutionary biologists as well as creationists about this issue, but I have also found much agreement with my perspective and far more supporting evidence than I had when I developed this suspicion. After saying what I mean, creationists say, "what you are saying makes sense, but [so and so, evolutionist] says random." The biologists typically say, "Of course, when you say nonrandom in that sense, you are correct, but that is not what we mean by random."
So here is what I mean by nonrandom with regard to chemical and biological change over time:
1. Chemicals behave in nonrandom ways because of their structural regularities and electronic affinities and aversions, such that some atoms and molecules are more or less attracted to some others, resulting in various accumulations, some of which are much more likely to occur than others, and some of which are more likely to persist than others. Pre-life chemistry is not just a bunch of randomly bouncing balls. The potential exists, within an array of finite, but a nearly infinite, number of molecules in variable contexts to accummulate (and then break down) in an almost endless variety of nonrandom and very complex ways. Chemical accummulations can occur in what we can call "constructive" or "progressive" ways [no implication of politics] in that across time, what becomes possible depends (is promoted or limited) to some extent on what has already ocurred. There can be accummulating or "emergent" complexity, with "emergent properties."
Note that the above is a naturalistic suggestion that makes no claim about whether supernatural intervention or influence was involved. If ever it was possible, it might have been possible at that time and if that is what someone wishes and chooses to believe, it just does not matter at all to me. Feel free. Remember, of course, that it is this pre-life era that is emphasized most by those who promote ID. Their point is that what happened then had to be intentionally designed because of the discernable regularity and complexity. They say that the regularity and complexity imply a designer, but that they do not identify who the designer is. Those who choose to believe it is their God are free to do so.
2. What about "random" as "unguided" and without "plan" or "purpose?" This seems to involve a focus on "goal directed" issues. Essentially, is there an intended "target?" I do not see the pre-life or post-life changes as being nonrandom in the sense of "thinking ahead" or "trying" to become something specific. At the same time, complex pre-life or post-life molecules have regular structures and affinities and aversions that limit their behavior and the ways in which they interact with the other aspects of their physico-chemical environments. The range of possibilities for each molecule or accummulation of molecules or cell or cells is not without limits. These are not a bunch of balls or BMW parts bouncing around randomly. The other accretions or complex molecules in the environment are also not unlimited. There are regularities. A kind of primitive "lock and key" relationship can occur among chemical and biochemical molecules. And, every time that occurred, it enabled added complexity, and additional emergent properties to be expressed, that could then influence subsequent interactions/functions. Imagine molecules or even cells, moving around with "keys" and others with "locks." Are the keys "searching for" the locks or vice versa? I say it is not that purposive or goal directed. It is just that there is a built in "readiness" for an interaction to occur. There is, in a sense, inherent intelligence. And is that random? Certainly not. Can the outcome be predicted? To some extent. We can identify affilities and aversions of complex biochemicals. We can identify "bonding sites" of nucleotides and see that some structures act as "templates" for the assembly of complimentary structures. We may not be able to predict with any great accurancy what emergent properties the compound might have. All this is "random" only in the sense that we are talking about an (almost) endless array of unspecified outcomes.
An "ecological niche" is essentially a "lock" while an organism is a "key." Are they waiting for each other? Searching for each other? Not really, but, after the fact, we can see that their characteristics made them "ready" to connect. But, to be quite fair, they COULD be "seeking" a complimentary fit, and being prepared to exploit a range of niches (or not) could be a characteristic of individuals or populations of organisms. Not being prepared for alternative niches puts a population at risk, because a change in the niche or competition from another population of organisms could lead to extinction. Is all this just chance? Just a roll of the dice? No, it has to do with a vast array of inherent regularities and variations and with opportunistic affiliations of extensive and vastly complex "lock and key" possibilities. There is practically no sense in which this can be likened to a bouncing balls lotto outcome--except to say some trite things like: "It was in the right place at the right time," or "timing is everything," or "location, location, location."
So, "natural selection" working on "random mutations?" That is an oversimplification, but how could it be (or have been) otherwise? In fact, the use of "random" makes evolution an easy target--especially when people try to calculate probabilities on the assumption that we are talking about a bunch of bouncing balls. Nothing could be much further from the truth.
Thanks for that quote! Yet, Erv thinks that this emphasis on randomness can be harmonized with the biblical view where purpose and design is present hundreds of times in Scripture!
I never fail to marvel at the great rhetorical sophistication of my good friend Nate. Never in the course of the history of AT blogs can anyone come close to his way with words. For example, “Evolution Weekend [is] primarily reflective of a Stockholm Syndrome among a few clerical intellectuals who have been taken captive by the postmodern Zeitgeist.” Who else could come up with a sentence like that? The only other Adventist I can think of who has the same kind of ideologically-driven rhetorical skills is my good friend Cliff Goldstein who has given up posting on any blog which is really a shame.
Of course, sometimes the words Nate uses do not carry the same meanings as they do in a dictionary, but that just means that the dictionary has no imagination. (I often have to look up the meanings of the obscure words that Cliff uses in a dictionary. But at least, Cliff agrees with the dictionary meanings of the words when he uses them.) Nate’s view is that he will use words to mean whatever he wishes them to mean -- quickly followed by facts as he wishes to invent as he deems it necessary.
As an example of a fact invented on the spot is Nate’s statement that the “the house of Darwin has been torn down and remodeled many times by science.” “Torn down”? Hardly. Darwin’s (and Wallace’s) central idea of natural selection continues to be a core idea in evolutionary biology. Obviously, a vast number of additional insights and a variety of mechanisms that could not have been known to Darwin and a great number of new approaches and conceptualizations that could not have been anticipated by him have been generated from that core idea.
But, of course, we must realize that Nate is not even trying to make a factual statement here. He is interested in scoring rhetorical points. I assume this approach works in a court room with juries, so he must think it will work in any venue. But when he writes his rhetorical gems down, their inherent lack of substance are easy to spot.
However, on another blog topic, Nate did make an interesting point that IMHO merits continued discussion. My memory is that he ventured the view that although his understanding of the scientific evidence did not convince him of the validity of Darwinian-type evolution, the weight of the current scientific evidence did render the young earth and young life creationism positions untenable. I hope I recalled this correctly. If I did not, I expect that he will correct me.
Interestingly, you took great issue with the one assertion about which we obviously agree. I said the house of Darwin - not its foundation - has been torn down and remodeled many times by its scientific curators. You said that "a vast number of additional insights..., a variety of of [new] mechanisms..., a great number of new approaches and [unforeseeable]conceptualizations...have been generated from that core idea." It sure sounds to me like you have described something that would be appropriate to the metaphor of tearing down and remodeling a house - no?
As to your last paragraph - yes, I have many times expressed my view that the weight of scientific evidence renders traditional YEC and/or YLC factual claims untenable. But don't get your hopes up. I am an equal opportunity skeptic. I also believe that scientific evidence, illuminated by the disciplines of probability and statistics, renders the core factual claims of evolutionary theory untenable.
hither or thither they rarely appear
they cause excitement, exaltation or fear
confusion, because our ancestors are still here
science, designing meds & technical devices
enabling longevity while lowering of crisis
the debating of it all is all well & fine
as we try to discover the origin of each kind
evolution, while micro extending the line
some believe intelligent design is divine
Sometimes "random" means utter chaotic chance with no discernable regularity.
Lotto numbers are drawn at random from little bouncing balls that are all as alike as can be,
aside from having identifying numbers.
Post-origin-of-life biochemicals and cells exhibit discernable regularity. Nonliving
chemicals also behave in systematic nonrandom ways. Atoms and sub-atomic particles
display affinities and aversions, and they accummulate into molecules, which also band
together into complex compounds, and into self-replicating biochemicals and cells.
I wish those who speak of "random mutations" would stop using that term. While
there is a sense in which the term "random" may be appropriate, it is so often misunderstood
and misrepresented that it probably should be discarded.
Joe, you said: "I wish those who speak of "random mutations" would stop using that term."
This would be easier if the defenders of evolution were to stop emphasizing the lack of design in nature and the lack of planning as an integral component of evolution. The problem for eevolutionists is that if they allow planning and design, this might lead people to think about a Designer. This is, of course, anathema to evolutionists. God must be kept out of the equation at all costs! If such an attitude is not a veiled atheism, then we must have an elephant in the room!
Forty years ago I had the impression that "mutations" occuring in the way they were then thought to occur could not cause enough variation to enable the rate of change that had to happen for the changes to occur as raidly as was suggested by the fossil record. It is now clear that many more sources introducing variation exist than were known way back then.
Yes, there is no third alternative. This is clear as noontime sunlight. Whatever is not directed must be random. Even my grandchild can understand this dichotomy! I am amazed at the dialectical contorsions the defenders of evolution will engage in in order to avoid what is crystal clear!
At one extreme "random" is used to mean "a complete absence of order" or "utterly and completely chaotic."
Sometimes "random" is used to mean "without any known cause" or "without any predictable consequence."
One can find many discussions and arguments, ranging from religion and philosophy to mathematics, physics, and biology regarding the meaning and implications of "randomness."
Heated discussions rage among scientists and science teachers about the use of the term "random" with regard to genetic "mutations." Much of the time they are just talking past each other and are using the term to mean different things. This tends to confuse people.
I tend to believe that when "randomness" occurs at all, in the sense of "totally unpredictable" or "absolutely chaotic," that even then there are some finite constraints. When one flips a coin, the coin lands as "heads" or "tails" (assuming it never lands on edge), and no other option occurs. Maybe rolling dice is an even better example. All outcomes of rolling two unbiased dice fall between two and twelve, 13 or 25 or 367 simply never occur. There are finite limits within which the results are supposed to appear randomly.
I tend to believe that everything has a cause, and that all outcomes are promoted or limited by what precedes them. The causes are often pretty complicated, ranging from proximal to ultimate causes. Predictive models often use both "constants" and "randomness" as elements or assumptions of the models, although the intention is not intended to mean absolutely constant in the sense of invariable and the use of "random" often just means "unpredictable." So, even in predictive models, there are sometimes "random" factors.
So, I am what some people would label "a determinist," even though that sounds kind of rigid to me--more rigid than I think I am. I think everything is caused, but that we often do not know exactly what the cause is. If one could observe the dice bouncing around in the cup and calculate all the physical forces at work, one could accurately describe how the outcome was determined. At the same time, even being able to do all that would not enable one to predict the result (other than to say with full confidence that the result will never be less than 2 or more than 12).
Even reading through the Wikipedia entry on "randomness" might be helpful for you. Although it is not comprehensive, it does adequate indicate that "directed" and "random" are not the only two possibilities or uses of the term. Perhaps you might want to also read that entry to your grandchild, Nic.
These arguments often end up being about "free will" versus "determinism" and/or Goad as the only "uncaused cause." I am less inclined to say "there are no accidents" and more inclined to suggest that "all accidents have causes," even though that does not necessarily allow us to neatly assign blame.
I'm not a scientist, so perhaps I can give a simple, lay person's perspective, illustration that relates to one of Joe's points above. I hope you don't mind Joe, and it is simplistic, and only relates to one aspect and Darrel's question, so if I'm up the creek, just say so.
Here's Joe's point:
"I do not see the pre-life or post-life changes as being nonrandom in the sense of "thinking ahead" or "trying" to become something specific. At the same time, complex pre-life or post-life molecules have regular structures and affinities and aversions that limit their behavior and the ways in which they interact with the other aspects of their physico-chemical environments. The range of possibilities for each molecule or accummulation of molecules or cell or cells is not without limits."
Then Darrel, you say: "But when you say it is "not directed" then it is Random."
Here's my illustration to try to get this right. Think of a river flowing our of its catchment area. There is no intelligence guiding it. The water, to a casual observer is flowing randomly. However, it is in fact bing "guided" by regular structures and affinities and aversions typical of water. ie it will not flow up hill, it will flow faster on steeper slopes etc.
Is there an "intended goal", or "target"? Not really. Is there an "intelligence" guiding it? No. Is it being "directed" by any consciousness? No.
And yet, we really could not call the flow of the water and the ultimate shape of the river nor the destination it reached "random". It was actually quite predictable! Almost inevitable!
I really appreciated Joe's points 1 & 2 above, and re your question, this illustration pops to mind for me. As I say, it is very limited, but perhaps makes some sense too.
In other words, the river is "not directed", yet neither is it Random. I honestly think Darrel, that if you stopped trying to put an intelligence behind everything and just read and digested what Joe is saying you would gain more from it.
I disagree! The flow of water is directed by the force of gravity and if you know the point of least resistance, you can predict its direction and outcome.
Is this what the defenders of the theory of evolution teach, that evolution is directed? Directing required a director and it implies planning and design!
Take a look at a little fella on a branch of the river who's luck in the evolutoinary lotto of mutations, change, and environment made his intelligence a little different to ours. See how a few huma glia can fast track him down river! Points to a very natural process for both parties imho.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2290202/Transplanting-human-brain-cells-rats-makes-cleverer-scientists-believe.html
“Cells have the amazing ability to edit DNA in response to stresses. They posses a complex "toolbox" of operations that results in DNA's being engineered to suit needs as they arise, suggesting in turn a certain natural intelligence”
Natural Intelligence
“NGE encompasses a set of empirically demonstrated cell functions for generating novel DNA structures. These functions operate repeatedly during normal organism life cycles and also in generating evolutionary novelties, as abundantly documented in the genome sequence record.”
“While NGE can help in understanding the molecular details of rapid and widespread genome change, it does not tell us what makes genomic novelties come out to be useful. How natural genetic engineering leads to major new inventions of adaptive use remains a central problem in evolution science.”
It remains a central problem because evolution conceptually to be “random.”
In the last sentence of what follows, Joe’s mentor states that the non-random intelligence of the cell might point us to a deeper level (higher level) of non-material intelligence.
“If experiments show that cells can make distinct appropriate NGE responses to different adaptive challenges, we need to figure out how they do so. This almost certainly would prove to be more than a strictly mechanical process. How do cells carry out their computations to make useful goal-oriented responses? A successful answer to that question will certainly involve cybernetics. If such investigations take evolution science into areas that are more than strictly material, so be it.”
Naturally, (Pun) He backs away a little from this statement, in the next sentence, but I like him. He’s honest.
Wow! This sounds like a Copernican revolution, a 180 degree turn around!
Take your example of a flowing river. Sandbags on the riverbanks, or a dam altering the course and effect of the river, would convince most people, beyond a reasonable doubt, that intelligence has intervened in the processes of nature to redirect the flow, an intervention that would be necessary to explain the new flow patterns and their consequences. Now you could of course simply attribute the "bumps" in the river (dams and/or sandbags) and their consequences, which cannot be explained by fluid mechanics, to "inherent intelligence" manifesting itself in complex systems that must be expanded beyond the laws of fluid dynamics to include human geography. But most folks would be more comfortable calling those changes the results of intelligent design. You could of course fully explain the new flow patterns by the reassertion of the laws of fluid dynamics which have adapted to the intervention of "inherent intelligence," and thus, by focusing on what you do in fact understand, minimize the significance of what you do not understand. But then haven't you thereby turned "inherent intelligence" into science's version of the "God of the gaps?"
Putting a label that which we do not understand, and do not have the tools to understand, somehow helps us feel that we own it, and that it can be analyzed and explained within our epistemic enclosure. But if one can't naturalistically explain the causal mechanisms in complex systems, how can one know whether the presumed intelligence is the result of inherent or external forces? The fact that an external causative force for the perceived "intelligence" would be outside the realm of science doesn't make "inherent intelligence" either scientific or more likely. Using "inherent intelligence" to airbrush mysteries of nature, which call into question the assumptions of evolutionary biology, is no less a leap of faith (a dishonest one at that) than using "Divine providence" to explain those mysteries.
Clearity of thoughts and logic is a hall mark of your posts. I may not agree with you in some points but your posts are a breath of fresh air amist convoluted logic and unabashed bias.
Are you suggesting that laws are the product of random acts of nature bereft of intelligence input??
The flow of water follows the law of gravity and less resistance. To atribute this to intelligent action makes no logical sense in my view!
When I presuppose that "complexity" poses a problem for naturalism, I am referring to the inadequacy of the naturalistic mechanisms of evolutionary biology - natural selection and randomness - to explain how and why that complexity evolved. It seems to me that using "inherent intelligence" as an evolutionary mechanism isn't an explanation at all, but an a posteriori conclusion - perhaps even a tautology - for which there is no empirical evidence other than complexity. That is what I meant by a leap of faith, and that is why I reject the notion that it is scientific. I used "leap of faith" in the sense that Kierkegaard talked about circularity, and self-referential thinking that looks only to itself in order to understand its objects.
Confining oneself to the discipline of physics in order to explain the damage resulting from an auto accident would result in ignoring the overriding reality that the driver of one of the vehicles was texting while driving. Unlike an evolutionary biologist, however, a physicist would readily acknowledge this limitation rather than attributing the primary cause for the impact, which is beyond the realm of physics, to inherent intelligence.
Let me emphatically concede that I reason here by intuition and logic. I have no competency in science, so I want to tread lightly. I may be way off base when it comes to understanding what evolutionary biologists mean when they use the phrase "inherent intelligence" in the context of "irreducible complexity." I realize you didn't even use the term in your river analogy. But it seemed to me that the concept was implied in your discussion of randomness. So that's why I raised the question. The river and its effects are unconcious - no design, no intent, only natural laws. But when one sees that its course and impact have been altered in ways that can't be explained by natural forces, authoritatively labeling the unknown(s) that produced the alterations "inherent intelligence," and dismissing the possibility of a designe as a reasonable explanation, strikes me as unscientific and presumptuous.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I think I get your points.
Perhaps to keep my response short, it is possible to use the last point you made about my "river"
"But when one sees that its course and impact have been altered in ways that can't be explained by natural forces, authoritatively labeling the unknown(s) that produced the alterations "inherent intelligence," and dismissing the possibility of a designer as a reasonable explanation, strikes me as unscientific and presumptuous."
Joe may explain the "inherent intelligence" more, and I don't wish to focus on its definition. Rather, I want to focus on the intuition and logic behind your point.
The "river" I imagined was a "natural" river. You are now suggesting adding "man made" elements to that "river" to illustrate the issue of unknowns, or gaps. You then ask why attribute these to "inherent" as opposed to "intelligence"? Ok. Let's run with that.
I don't say this to annoy, or make rational dialogue difficult, but how does one (you in this case) determine (see) that the course and impact have been "altered"? How does one determine that these "alterations" cannot be explained by natural forces? On deeper level again, what in fact is "complex"? Is that not a relative term?
Let's morph the illustration a little to show what I mean:
The "river of life" flows through the "river of time". Going back along both streams (life and time) we find humanities assessment of the river has changed. 3000 years ago, how many things were not explained as the result of natural forces? People saw "sandbags" all over the place. Perhaps, to borrow a line from you: The proposition of the divine to explain the bumps, was not an explanation at all, but an a posteriori conclusion. (i'm not sure you are using the word correctly, but let's take it as is). A conclusion reached because their whole world view was permeated with the divine.
Now, you are effectively saying the same about science's world view being so permeated with naturalism that they can only look at the "evidence" through naturalistic glasses and see no other conclusion for the data.
What is a common sense way to respond to this? Well first, tentatively. Second, without bias. Third, by looking at the flow of the river. The last generation or two, has seen sandbags stripped away. There are reliable explanations for vastly greater blocks of the river. (as Joe noted, not all explanations about anything are or will be correct) Ignore the gaps, ignore "inherent" stuff, we now know the world explained through natural processes offers a powerfull, and comprehensive explanation of the river (life, world, cosmos).
The footprints of a "sandbagger" have become harder to find, have they not? The areas of knowledge, where you "can" replace "inherent" with "intelligence", or "design" are shrinking rapidly. We are now forced to look to minutia like DNA, genomes, and whatever else excites Darrel, Thunderstorms, droughts, and floods no longer qualify!
So, back to faith. The leap from sandbag to sandbag is widening! The raft of Unequivoal evidence is becoming unsinkable. It honestly seems to me the idea of a designer as a reasonable explanation, is unscientific and presumptuous because the weight of evidence points to natural.
Well, so much for short!
cannot the scientific community, collectively, choose a word that takes the place of random, which they
adopted earlier. If they can't agree on a simple descriptive word, why should we extend relevence to their convincing us they have the answers to the greatest quest of mankind?
I think we have something similar in science and religion. Why are there so many Christian demoninations and sects? People seem not to be able to agree, exactly, on the meanings of certain words and concepts--to the point that they break apart and sometimes even fight wars. And, of course, this kind of fragmentation is common in other religions besides Christianity. If they can't agree, why would we extend relevance to their efforts to convince us that their answers are correct regarding the ultimate meaning of life and mankind?
Warm wishes to you, Earl, on this beautiful Sabbath morning! It is a little crisp here in Pennsylvania, but should warm up nicely by mid-day. Wishing all of you well.
The other day I got on google earth and "flew" the Yellow River from its headwaters to the sea. Fascinating. You and I cannot "fly" the river of life, but we sure can sample the sediments from along the way, and your description of its present day citizens being a result of its flow is attested by their study.
Take a look at a little fella on a branch of the river who's luck in the evolutoinary lotto of mutations, change, and environment made his intelligence a little different to ours. See how a few huma glia can fast track him down river! Points to a very natural process for both parties imho.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2290202/Transplanting-human-brain-cells-rats-makes-cleverer-scientists-believe.html
THe identical study by an ID scientist (who might or might not be willing to implant human glia into a rat, but that is an ethical question) would say, Hurray! We have proved that human brain cells are the crown of creation, isn't God wonderful to have made humans the way they are so carefully designed.
Rats have rat glia for good reasons. Humans brains have human glia for good reasons.
Intelligence all the way around. For ID people believe the rat like the human had the same design team working on them.
It would be a faith statement in the absence of any evidence.
Then he raised Lazarus, and they said: He does all these miracles through the power of Beelzebub. Finally, he came out of the tomb following his crucifixtion, and they said: His disciples must have stolen his body. They rejectem Him not for the lack of evidence, but out of a rebellious heart and self inflicted blindnss. If you wait for additional evidence, you may discover that none will be provided.
Has it ever occured to you that those stories about Jesus may in fact be incredible? I mean in the dictionary sense of: "So implausible as to elicit disbelief". That is, impossible to believe!
What you have recounted is a selection of the tales about Jesus that made it into the NT version of events. There are others with their array of the bizzare and unbelievable. One gets the feeling that what made it into the NT are the more "believable" ones, and even those are actually incredible and deny all contemporary evidence that any such events ever happen or have happened.
As for Moses feeding 2 million! Yes, the same guy tells me about a global flood that never happened, so why would I think the 2 million was anything more than a nomadic tale exagerated to the incredible?
Even hundreds of years later, during the Middle Ages, if one reads of their lives, they also believed in witches, demons, curses causing death, and more.
The Bible was written by people who, at the time may have honestly believed such stories. Recall, there were no eyewitnesses to Jesus and all the Gospels were written much later and depended on oral accounts passed down.
Thankfully, one can be a Christian by accepting Jesus as Savior and trying to live by his ethical teachings. When did Jesus teach orthodoxy and what doctrines must be accepted? Love was his central teaching, which is for everyone.
Yes, all the miracles recorded in the Bible are incredible from our human point of view. This is why the Psalmist said: "Taste and see that the Lord is good." I have done that. I have seen the Lord's hand in my life.
Here is one example: We were on our way back from Mexico, and we got stranded near Temecula. For four hours we tried to get our car started withoug success. The mechanic checked the car and informed us that the timing was broken and we would never be able to star the car in its present condition.
I suggested to my wife that we call a taxi and go to a motel. She said: "Let me try one more time." She inserted the key in the ignition and said: "In the name of the Lord," and the car started. We got home and the next morning I attempted to start the car again without success. I had it towed to the mechanic and, after the car was inspected, he said: "The time is broken. There is no way to start this car!"
I can tell you about many similar anecdotes. Without faith, you will never see the hand of the Lord in your life. If the paralitic had not made an attempt at getting up and walk, he would have died a cripple.
I think Chris, your point may be that what we see as diving boards, sandbags, dams, docks, ferries, etc., begs the question because those labels presuppose realities and processes that everyone knows are in fact human interventions and designs. What if they aren't diving boards, sandbags, etc.? Jack and I step back, look at, for example, the diver in the pool, and say two things: 1) Okay, we know you can explain the molecular composition and function of that life; but tell us how it evolved into what we see, separate and distinct from other molecules, with an apparent mind of it's own; 2) "Sorry, you just can't get from there to here with the explanatory tools and mechanisms of natural law. There's got to be some other explanation." And as we see it, only a creative mind could prescind and create the conditions to expand and confine molecular and cellular self-replicating processes, as we observe them in complex organisms. In a world where scientific evidence and proof reign supreme, isn't that the most intellectually honest position?
I agree with you, Chris, that for centuries, theistic explanations for the natural world have been on the defensive. But why invest "religious" faith in that trajectory? As the stupendous, mysterious complexities of the microcosm are being revealed, does it not shake your faith? It seems to me that evolutionary biology is in much the same position that the Ptolemaic explanation of the universe was 500 years ago. As I understand it, even today, some of the mathematical formulations of that system are useful, and quite accurate in predicting eclipses. Like the Ptolemaic theory, Darwin's theories have been revised, abandoned, and reformatted so many times as to scarcely be recognizable as anything more than a general affirmation of the exclusive necessity and adequacy of natural processes and laws to explain life on earth. Doesn't there come a point in time when your faith, that natural laws will in fact someday be able to explain "irreducible" complexities, should be tempered by an honest acknowledgement that there is at present no naturalistic explanation, even as the quest for understanding continues?
Then one may (or may not) look into the hypothesis that an "RNA world" preceded DNA, and that DNA was a consequence of the accummulation of complex RNA and RNA-like chemicals and components, including the enzyme-like ribozymes. It is common for proponents of ID to claim that there is "no evidence" for an "RNA world." While one may choose to ignore the evidence or not believe or accept the evidence, there are thousands of publications regarding first, the speculations about this concept from the 1960s and 1970s, to the discovery and description and synthesis of ribozymes in the 1980s up to the present in which detailed laboratory experimental studies have demonstrated and described naturally occurring ribozymes and the mechanisms of their functions, as well as deriving and testing therapeutic applications of RNA technologies. There is no really good reason to deny or ignore this very active body of knowledge if one is honestly trying to understand how biology works.
Now, if one goes back to the question of where atoms and molecules and subatomic particles get their affinities and antagonistic tendencies or direction and rate of spin or electrical changes, one can certainly study those physical and chemical characteristics too, and one can choose to try to figure out ways of explaining these naturally or by ascribing these characteristics to spiritual forces.
But, ultimately, it seems to me that personal knowledge, feelings, intuition, and imagination play a very large role in what we believe and experience about the world. It is our personal and subjective world in which our personal consciousness and awareness exists. Our intuition can be informed by our senses, and sometimes that can be empirically verified as objective by comparing the ways we describe our experiences with the descriptions of others. This can give us a sense that objective reality exists--and some of us are more committed than others to informing our intuition with objectively verifiable evidence.
Maybe we are all seeking some sort of balance among the sources of information that inform our subjective selves. If we can respect that there are substantial individual differences in how we process information, maybe we can be more tolerant of each other. And perhaps, there is really a very broad spectrum of what is "revealed" or found to be credible by us. When any of us gets into some trouble, I suspect, is when we stake out claims of truth and defend this territory too vigorously--as if only our view had validity.
Does it really have to be one or the other, Joe? In his fascinating work, Human Accomplishment, Charles Murray marvels at the concentration of scientific discovery and creativity during a relatively short span of history, in a relatively limited geographic region of the world. He suggests that the combination of emerging political freedom and devotion to a more accessible God of order, who could be discovered and understood through natural laws woven into His creation, coalesced to bring about an explosion of human intellectual curiosity and creativity. How about trying to figure out ways to explain things naturally, while still conceding that what can, in many respects, be understood naturally appears in many instances to have been produced, programmed and/or guided by a mind(s) beyond the natural order?
I.D. proponents have no quarrel with the attempt to figure out ways of explaining the U-turns, discontinuities, and enigmas of nature by natural mechanisms. But when science offers no satisfactory naturalistic explanation, why is it so difficult for evolutionary theorists to admit, "Yes, we see that; we admit that science offers us no satisfactory naturalistic model to explain that; and it does look very much like the product of intelligence; let's keep investigating and see if we can understand whether and how the phenomenon may have evolved naturally before we simply ascribe it to a supernatural cause."? Wouldn't that response have much more intellectual integrity than belittling, ridiculing, and censoring I.D. theorists for merely pointing out that "strategic parts" of King Evolution seem to be exposed?
Overall, I heartily concur in your most temperate comments, Joe. But the power brokers of evolutionary biology sound far more militant and intolerant to me.
First: Diver in the pool. "..tell us how it evolved into what we see, separate and distinct from other molecules, with an apparent mind of it's own;...
A simple answer I would say, "it got to be distinct and separate by an evolutionary process".
This may sound simplistic, but if you do some research on "vestigial", DNA errors, retroviruses, and the like, there would be massive questions as to how these can exist if there is not a transitional process behind life forms. (divers)
We have discussed some before, but just a couple of examples. Vestigial bones in wales. Vestigial nerve location in Girrafe. Vestigial milk lines in humans common to all mammals. Common DNA error in human/apes.
Even a simple look at Wiki on transitional fossils will suggest that it is not simple to dismiss the links.
So, it seems to me that there is a massive crossover with micro and macro evolution and that the evidence for one, micro, which is accepted by IDers, cannot be separated from macro. Each is an evidence for the other. I think Joe has alluded to this above with ID proponents recognizing that "everything after the origin of DNA could be biological change through descent with changes and natural processes like selection from variation."
That seems to leave Darrels DNA "problem" on a pretty thin limb!
Your next point seems to be:
...you just can't get from there to here with the explanatory tools and mechanisms of natural law. There's got to be some other explanation.
Why does there "got to be" an explanation outside of, or beyond, natural laws? If you insist on this because of what? Complexity? Design? I can understand that thinking, but it is a two edged sword. If we are to insist that complexity, design etc are sufficient to demand a better explanation, then you have to be fair: That logic or reasoning demands that you cannot invoke a designer, or mind as a cause without then demanding an explanation for him, her, it.
I honestly don't think it matters what theological explanations one offers, nothing can justify making a claim for a designer/mind to explain complexity or design and then refusing to expose the designer to the same scrutiny or "need of a cause".
For me, this issue of "regress" suggests that it is simpler to take nature as its own "explainer". Until, or unless, there is no reasonable explanations from nature itself, which there is, why go beyond it?
Another question is this. Why is design, if it is such, and as you take it to be. the only apparent pointer outside of nature,? Why does there appear to be zero evidence of any "interventionist" style entity outside of nature?
Seriously, Jesus has no need of fiat currency, He is able, He owns the Earth and "all that exists". He is the LIGHT, of the world. The GREAT IAM CAN DO. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and accept His grace & blessings, of the 'HOLY SPIRIT", accept His peace & its yours.
How is your personal testimony as to the truth of your beliefs any more valid than the personal tesimony of a muslim?
I hope your failure to respond to these questions is simply an indication that you intend to address them in your upcoming follow-up blog on this topic. Surely, an intellectually honest indictment of Adventist Churches, for ignoring a weekend that probably 99% of all Christian congregations in the country ignored, should addess these questions.
If you need a definition of I.D./theistic evolution in order to decide whether they are compatible with Darwinian evolution, why not also seek a definition of Christianity? I have a difficult time seeing how anything that would pass the "Christian" smell test would not include belief in an intelligent designer of the natural world. Would that definition help you to respond to question #2?
I'm also interested to know, Erv, if you believe in the "doctrine" of non-overlapping magesteria (NOMA) - at least as a 2-way street. That notion seems to be central to the contention that faith concerns should in no way inform the science curricula in SDA education. And if that is correct, as a matter of logic, I don't see how you can find a metric by which to conclude that Christianity and biological evolutionary theory are compatible. Am I wrong?
Finally, might I suggest that your answer to question #3 reveals the reason why evolution weekend passed unheralded by almost all Christian congregations in America - because they are Christians. I have a bet with myself that you won't like that answer.
Certainly Adventists' traditional insistence that science validates their creation and flood theories is fairly unique among Christians, though far from exclusive. But wouldn't you agree, Erv, that there is a much larger belief gap between mainstream Christianity and Darwinian evolution than there is between Adventism and mainstream Christianity when it comes to the core theories of evolutionary biology? So when you question why Adventist congregations, among all of Christendom, didn't celebrate Evolution Weekend, it strikes me as akin to asking why Great Danes don't hibernate. Because they are dogs...
--------------
I agree with this. I will also say that Christianity best fulfils the law of noncontradiction as opposed to other religions including evolutionism (and its rabbit hole brigade of prophets who speculate the past).
In the prestigious scientific journal, Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences, leading evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala celebrates "Darwin's greatest accomplishment," to show that the origin of life's complexity "can be explained as the result of a natural process -- natural selection -- without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent." Francisco Ayala, "Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 104:8567 (May 15, 2007) Is this truly the definition of evolution????
I see these definitions as saying the same thing. I this is your own view of evolution? If so do you feel evolution saves God from accountability for ‘bad design?’ as Dr. Ayala does? If so do you feel Christianity should embrace evolution as a Theodicy? Honest Questions?
A lead scientist of a group that detected an event of a particle traveling faster than the speed of light due to a faulty connecting cable resigned. The rigor of physics is inspiring. On the other hand the possibility of human Neanderthal interactions or cross breeding with human fell like a house of cards.
Near order of magnitude or orders of magnitude revisions seem to be the rule rather than exceptions in evolution science.
Is there any wonder about different levels of credibility among different branches of natural sciences?
The application of physics to archeology and anthropology and paleobiology does not always provide perfectly reliable results, does it? It does provide estimates, which usually benefit from revision and refinement on the basis of additional evidence. How trustworthy are the estimates? Each must be weighed on its own merits, and, I think, held tentatively.
You are right that estimates should be held tentatively and when citing the age of a specimen the methodology and the confidence bound should accompany the estimates. This is seldom the case in evolution science. Using radioactive dating is not applying physics directly. There is few dispute about the half life estimates of radioactive isotopes but the application and assumptions by which the age of a specimen is derived using those isoptopes should be subjected to scrutiny. The difficulty lies in the fact that long age estimates always has to assume contancy of the conditions that maintain the ratios of remaining radioactive isoptopes and stable transmuted derivatives through the time frame of the estimation. The longer the time frame the greater the uncertainty hence it takes a lot of faith to accept those estimates.
Joe, physics is not easy. The event that led to detecting a tracing of the Hicks boson is about one in one trillion proton-proton interactions!
So, it sounds like finding the Hicks boson was so improbable that it could not have happened. And yet, it did. Why? At least in part because some people knew what they were looking for and controlled the conditions enough to dramatically increase the prospect of finding what they were looking for.
Now, one of the things we have to be careful of is underestimating the range of the estimate. So, for example, if an estimated date is 60,000 years before the present plus or minus 12,000 years, the range is 48,000 to 72,000 years, and enormous range. Statements about sequential events (or relationships among artifacts) need to be recognized as very tentative within the mean, standard error/variance, and range. This does not mean, however, that such estimates are so flawed as to warrant being completely ignored, as happens when someone insists that something could not be older than 6,000 years, when the most accurate possible estimate is ten times that, with a lower range limit that is eight times that.
Estimated ages of 60 million years, plus or minus 15 million years, are just not in the same ball park as something estimated at 6 million years, and are far, far from 6000 years.
There is not really any reason I should be telling you this, because I'm confident that you already know this.
I always enjoy hearing from you, Philip. Take care.
One reason the Hicks boson was not detected previously was the energy levels of previous equipments were inadequate. Mathematical model are practical in situation when the parameters and operation priciples are known. Nuclear devices in advanced nations are no longer tested by exploding physical devices but by simulations. I hope someone like Collins who is well versed in genetics and physics could initiate mathematical speciation simulations. It may cast light on the probability of speciation.
As an undergradute student my physics professor remarked that if one surveyed the Adventist community he thought there would be half and half of them beliving in an old earth and new earth. I have always accepted the concept of an old earth since I took Genesis 1:2 literally that the earth was in a choatic state and water (hydrogen and oxygen) was in existence. So I think you can save your energy from arguing against 6000 year Earth. They may be a hard core minority.
Origin is completely a different matter since it is outside the realm of science hence I took the Six Day Creation literally. In Evolution Science when it ventures into origin it strays outside of the realm of science. It is basically a faith based construct.
As to the difficulty of physics one renown professor of statistics remarked that the reason he had chosen statistics instead of physics was that too many smart people in physics are chasing after a few problems.
I have only detailed knowledge of one isotope dating method, radiocarbon dating, and I and a number of my colleagues spend a lot of time looking into what causes apparent and real anomolies in 14C dates. The factors that can cause such anomolies are many and, in most cases, we understand quite well what causes invalid dates to be produced.
We are often amused by the writings of young life creationsts (YECs) when they discuss radiocarbon dating. I often gave some of their articles to first year graduate students to read and it does did not take most of them more than a couple of minutes to spot what YEC writers did not understand about how the method works and why we get some of the results YECs like to quote. It made for some very entertaining discussions. GRI articles are of particular interest. I get to explain to students something about why fundamentlists approach these topics in the manner they do. .
Please give some details and examples of how C-14 dating discusion went wrong . The fact that C14 dating can revise Neanderthals extinction by 40% indicates that the application of the method itself is not fool proof. Graduation students are certainly not the final authorities on C-14 dating methods.
Philip, I trust that you graduated in physics from an adventist college or university (maybe PUC?). Where did you do your PhD? I am not implying anything negative by this question, just wondering where and when. You seem young (by that, I mean under 60, just my perspective).
I'm trying to understand your mention of Collins (Francis, I presume?) and mathematical simulation of speciation. Please help me understand a little better what you mean.
Thanks, Philip. It's always good chatting with you.
Joe,
Let us concentrate on our content of communication rather than satisfying our curiosity of someone's academic credential. I was apalled at one point at your seeming inability to grasp the simple concepts of falsification and other very basic paradigms of science. That made me doubt your academic credential. Later I learn that you put in a lot of time in field biology. I am very familiar with that since I do have a lot of field biologists as my clients. They are generally well versed in field work and practical aspects of nature but less well versed in the more theoretical aspect of the sciences. I can tell there are a few bloggers who are very well versed scholastically and intellecturally without showing their credentials. There are a few who despite their credentials are bascially insult to their own and others intelligence. So that I do not disappoint you, every statistician in our institution has a Ph.D. My job allows me to be in company with groups of people for whom without a Ph.D. is an exception.
And yet, you seem unwilling to share with us information about your qualifications that make you so superior to the rest of us. I feel a little alienated by your revealing how you were apalled at my "seeming inability to grasp the simple concepts of falsification and other very basic paradigms of science." That really put me in my place, didn't it? I know I have a lot to learn.
You and some of your likeminded bloggers have the perchance to push others for their credentials and qualifications creating an illusion that people with credentials and qualifications are in full support of evolution and the less qualified people support creation.
Discussion about creation and evolution is not simple. Often it traverses domains inside and outside the realm of natural sciences especially when it involves the question of origin. A clear understanding of basic paradigms of science is essential. Using terms you do not fully understand advocating a specific position can be as dangerous as an amateur surgeon. The fact that few of my biologist colleagues show eagerness of championing their belief in evolution demonstrates the fact many know the boundary of the domain of science. They are not stupid.
Even an innocent child can point out the emperor has no cloth. Why not evaluate bloggers’ messages on the merit of their contents rather than second guessing their credentials?
So, anyway, why don't we lighten up a little bit. I think your work sounds interesting, and apparently you have been doing that kind of work competently for 20 years or more, as far as I could tell from your publications. I only ask that you give mutual respect a chance, so we can carry on a conversation. I'm not even interested in arguing, and I have no need or wish to insult you. Peace, my brother. Can't we just get along?
By JOHN BERMAN (@johnsberman) and MICHAEL MURRAY
May 7, 2010
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/neanderthals-humans-share-dna-study-reveals/story?id=10587532#.UU0JIFfz59s
1999 ABC News Internet Ventures
http://media.isnet.org/iptek/Evolution/Neanderthals.html
“Radiocarbon dating on pill-size samples from two skulls put their age at 28,000 years old. The Neanderthal specimens had earlier been dated at 45,000 years using a less accurate method.”
Tuesday, 27 April 1999
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/1999/04/27/23000.htm
Portuguese and American scientists claim they have found definite proof that Neanderthals and modern humans (Homo sapiens) were in fact not separate species.
Neanderthals and Early Humans May Not Have Mingled Much
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: May 9, 2011
“But researchers report that tests using an improved method of radiocarbon dating, based on a new way to exclude contaminants, show that most, and maybe all, Neanderthal bones in Europe are or will be found to be at least 39,000 years old.”
Radioactive dating is no rocket science. The physics, chemistry, and math involved are covered in high school. Failure analysis is a good way of learning and gain insight into a subject. Ervin would do all a favor by explaining the large discrepancy in his area of expertise.
The question is about C14 radiocardon dating. Retreat to word definition cannot evade the issue here.
Is it realistic to expect anthropology or neuroscience or psychology to be as precise as physics or chemistry can be? I recall many years ago some conversations I had with a physics PhD student whose office was just down the hall from mine. He suggested that his work was rather like mine, as he was observing/measuring the behavior of sub-atomic particles, while I was observing/measuring the behavior of fruit flies or carp or monkeys. Funny, too, that his name was also Joe Erwin....
Erv, you wrote: "I had a very difficult time resisting what must be the dark side of my personality in wanting to respond to Nic's Lord of Spagetti story."
Evidently you don't believe in miracles. My question is: How does this impact your Adventism? The main pillar of Adventism is the Bible. The Bible is full of events atributed to God's miraculous activity on behalf of his people. If you reject God providential intervention in history, then what kind of Adventism you are left with?
Is there any spiritual residue you managed to salvage from your Adventist upbringing? Do you still believe in the existence and power of God? If God exists, but is unable or unwilling to act on behalf of those he created, what benefit is this for us? If we negate the Bible as a reliable source of information about God and his ability or willingnes to intervene in nature, then how is this different from those who are agnostics or atheists?
1. Evidently you don't believe in miracles. My question is: How does this impact your Adventism? The main pillar of Adventism is the Bible. The Bible is full of events atributed to God's miraculous activity on behalf of his people.
A: I don’t rule out the possibility of miracles, but simply can’t buy into the dogma, “The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it.” I can no more buy into that dogma any more than I can change my ethnicity or my heterosexual orientation. My inability to buy into that dogma, my ethnicity and my sexuality all affect my Adventism. There are also many sacred texts that say different things, so how would I know on an a priori basis even which Bible we “should” believe?
The main pillar of Adventism is NOT the bible, but a peculiar and unique interpretation of the Bible. My proof is the thousands of different Christian churches that claim to be based on the same Bible, but came up with different doctrines.
You write, “The Bible is full of events atributed to God's miraculous activity on behalf of his people.” This is only true on the assumption that biblical text is to be interpreted as accurate history, as opposed to being allegorical, symbolic, or even myth. Who says it has to be interpreted as history? Only humans. Why should a human interpretation be binding on anybody else? Also, how do we know that it was not God’s intention that there be great variety in human beliefs regarding the Bible?
2. If you reject God providential intervention in history, then what kind of Adventism you are left with?
A: This is hypothetical, right? Liberal Adventism, which includes (but certainly does not require) the idea of pan-entheism, the idea that God may be the underlying regularity in nature, besides being also separate from nature. Most importantly, it leaves one with an Adventism that has decided that prosaically carrying out the healing ministry of Jesus is the right arm of our message. I love that idea, regardless of whatever else they might claim.
3. Is there any spiritual residue you managed to salvage from your Adventist upbringing?
A: The question presupposes that very little could be left, and that spirituality is a necessary thing to be Adventist. But according to SDA theologian, Rick Rice, in Believing, Behaving and Belonging, “belonging” is the most important element. A feeling of belonging is the essential residue, and those like Erv who have “stuck around” have that. Whether or not that constitutes or includes “spiritual residue” (however “spiritual” is defined) is entirely irrelevant, IMO.
4. Do you still believe in the existence and power of God?
A: Being open to those possibilities is of course not the same as believing in those doctrines. But neither you nor I choose those doctrines as beliefs like we would choose apple pie or chocolate cake for dessert. I agree with Erv that there appears to be something like a “faith gene,” so we might as well talk about other genetically determined characteristics as well., like race, etc
You were born with a faith gene, Nic, which in these circles sometimes is apparently perceived like being born with a silver spoon in ones mouth. Others were not so fortunate (or unfortunate, as the case may be).
5. If God exists, but is unable or unwilling to act on behalf of those he created, what benefit is this for us?
A: IOW, “what’s in it for me?” (This is another hypothetical.) The form of your question implies that you suppose whatever brings you the most benefits must be true, implying a pragmatic definition of truth. While I like that definition, there are also other competing definitions of truth; namely truth as defined by internal coherence, and truth defined as correspondence with an external world, for example.
Your particular brand of pragmatism apparently calculates all the benefits or “goodies” you assume you will get after you die and get resurrected, which is analogous to that of the Islamic Jihadist suicide bomber whose calculus includes the 72 eager virgins he will supposedly get upon being resurrected and put back together into one piece (by Allah) after blowing himself up. Does the speculative nature of this calculus change if we substitute 72 harps, or eternal life for the 72 virgins? I am not sure it does. Therefore, my “conservative” brand of pragmatism does not include in its calculus what benefits I personally might receive after I die and get resurrected.
6. If we negate the Bible as a reliable source of information about God and his ability or willingnes to intervene in nature, then how is this different from those who are agnostics or atheists?
A: Another hypothetical. Nic, you are a credulous person who would have probably become a serious Islamist if you have been born in a place like Saudi Arabia and were first exposed to Islam and the Koran. Then you would be challenging fellow Islamists by asking if they would not be agnostics and atheists if they did not presuppose “that the Koran was a reliable source of information about God and his true prophet, Mohammed.” So your question is really circular, and anyone born into any religious tradition could ask the same circular question and intimidate those who were in the same tradition (constituting an “intellectual prison”).
The only escape from your circular thinking, Nic, is to develop critical thinking skills capable of challenging the traditional beliefs of your particular culture. Until you do that, you are arguably no different than an Islamist, Buddhist, or a Hindhi, and your Christianity is probably an accident of your birth. But I am thankful that you were not born in Saudi Arabia, or heaven help us!
Wow, ...thank you for that post. Every point makes so much sense.
I confess that reading of blogs and comments of late on AT has left me questioning my own sanity, and feeling the threat of being "homeless" at times. That "essential residue" is hard to cling to in light of some oft repeated themes here!
You have given the answer to those who make so many assumptions about religion, but often believe they are making choices ignoring the heritage they received from birth and are completely making free choice from a tabla rasa.
I am always delighted to see you up here still making sense on so many threads. The existence of rival religions making different claims under the same authority is one of those seemingly unanswerable challenges to faith.
Yes, tabula rasa and inspiration as an explanation seems to fall short when the particular faith one defends correlates so closely to the religion into which we were born. Relativity seem an inviting and parsomnious theory. But we know that can't be true, right?
I hope this helps in making you feel like you still "belong." I am still an SDA apologist, in my mind, at least, but strive (not necessarily successfully all the time) to be an intellectually honest one. As I said in one of my initial posts on this thead, I love the choice that the church made to embrace the healing ministry as well as the conservative values of Christianity.
a bit please. ::-))
Why should he lighten up? After reading some of the stuff on another thread or two (kevind) what Dennis wrote was an absolute breath of fresh air in suffocating monotony.
The last sentence in the opening paragraph suggests otherwise. Respect is stated! Are you confusing straight, factual argument for hostility?
Beyond that, I'll leave it to Dennis to explain. I'm just saying I appreciated the material on face value, and do not see it as ripping an enemy! That is an indefensible assertion imho.
But I don't have the same 'faith" gene, so the same experience does not do the same thing for me. He is an honorable man and I would never, never, rip "him." Only his interpretation of the same data.
I know Nic is not some sensitive soul who will shrivel up and die when his ideas are criticized. We have probably 100 pages of prior theological correspondence between us. That is why I feel free to cut to the chase.
Hey, I am glad this discussion is not dead yet!