Elaine Nelson

Erv, beautiful and most appropriate satire!  If we truly believed that the Bible is the last word on everything:  science, history, anthropology, etc., we would only need a few months, at the most, to produce wonderful doctors who were trained in healing by touch, (phrenology would be taught to position the hands over the necessary part of the head), proper oils for annointing, and forget any medical or surgical treatment because that denies the power of God to heal--as in Bible times.

 The question should be:  how many administrators who advocate teaching the literal 6-day Bible creation story, would be willing, even eager, to reject all scientific medical treatment and prefer to trust in healing and annointing.  IOW, put their money where there vocal cords are.  Belief and following the Bible in biology has little affect on them personally, while medical needs certainly do.  Does the SDA denomination refuse to offer healthcare plans unless they limit  funds for the laying on of hands.  One could drive a truck through such illogical thinking.

After I finally stopped laughing (which I hope no one takes as disrespect of either God's healing power or the talent of our Adventist physicians) I realized that like all great satire, it is not only a wee bit cutting and mildly offensive, but it is also not far from the truth.  Certain denominations of our Christian brothers hold tightly to biblically-based doctrine that requires them to refuse some or all modern medical treatments.  Jehovah's Witnesses believe strongly in their Bible-based refusal to accept blood transfusions.  Christian Scientists choose to rely on divine healing, and shun modern medical treatment because of biblical instruction.

How do we reconcile the differences in biblical translation?  Are we Adventists simply always right, and everyone else always wrong?  We must be, if we are so bold as to not only declare our 28 beliefs as Fundamental, but deny the trueness of the Adventism of those of us who don't swear allegiance to the document.  Is this approach to theology perhaps just a little bit egotistical?  Is this approach even reasonable?  (For clarity, these questions are intended to be rhetorical in nature...) 

Publishing the Fundamental Beliefs was dangerous for a myriad of reasons.  Declaring Beliefs as "fundamental" invites allegiance to the contents of the document itself - rather than allegiance to Christ Himself.  Moreover, we have created a man-made measuring stick for testing the trueness or soundness of a person's faith or spiritual fitness to serve, as is the case in the LSU controversy. 

Adventists have historically been reluctant to formalize a creed.  JN Loughborough made the historic statement in the October 8, 1861 Review and Herald article (now the Adventist Review.)

"The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is, to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And fifth, to commence persecution against such."

What Step are we currently on right now?

Erv,

Great satire!

Steve don't we have a creed? The 28 Fundamental beliefs seem to fit the definition. Anyway, I guess I should dump my research and brush up on my witch doctor skills after all anyone can do it, right? 

"He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine..." - Luke 10:34

Hi Sean - again, while stressing that I am a Creationist, and that I am unable and unwilling to put in the study that would enable me to comprehend the "1000aa level,"  can you please explain to me how Provine's Theory of Incompatibility is provable, much less proven?

I understand that some Evolutionists use their theory to disprove the existence of God.  However, the vast majority of people in the world still believe in some form of creation, while also understanding the power of natural selection - meaning they lay somewhere philosophically in between belief in a literal six-day creation and an everything from amoeba-theory of evolution. 

While I do understand that the piece posted by Erv was satire, how do you resolve your career choice as a medical doctor, when so many sincere Christians believe that dependence upon modern science is a direct undermining of faith in the power of the Ultimate Healer?  Their views also hold that God created the earth in six days, and that modern science is a direct undermining of faith in the power of the Ultimate Creator.  Bandages, oil and wine are a long way from your microscope, modern pharmaceuticals, and surgery. 

Sean wrote:

--

For example, where is the scientific basis for thinking that the Darwinian mechanism of random mutations combined with natural selection is likely to create much of anything beyond very low levels of functional complexity? - like beyond the 1000aa level? - even given trillions of years of time?

--

What is so funny about this statement is that as Sean has said and David Read also say. they do believe in the evolution of species. But here he acts as if it cannot possible be true.  You know you are dealing with faulty reasoning when they produce inconsistent statements.

Elaine Nelson

Such twisted illogical thinking!  For an M.D. to accept, unquestioningly, a literal 6-day creation told by ancient writers' with their worldview; and yet refuse to adopt or practice the many healing methods advocated in the Bible is to demonstrate very selective "cherry picking" of texts. 

A challenge:  For those medical or healtcare professionals who limit their practice to Bible-advocated methods, please report the results. 

Well Sean most Geneticists will disagree with your position. So maybe you need to rethink the learning about genetics statement. By the way Darwin really blasted your hypothesis away on the Galopigos Island when he discovered such things as beaks on birds specialized for the plants in their islands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches

Granted Species is a human classification system, though it is certainly more detailed then the King James "kinds" the point remains that even in your system animals change and not simply degenerate into lesser forms through damaging mutations.

But best not to confuse you with science.Because clearly you bend whaever science to your purposes even when it ultimately becomes inconsistent with what you claim in other areas of your interpretations.

Sean, on the 18th you wrote:  "I believe in the existence of God and the Divine origin of the Bible, and in a literal interpretation of the Genesis account."

 You were willing to disclose that of yourself. Is that your final answer:-)

As for the medical practices during OT and NT times, many were recommended in the Torah as the accepted and adopted practices.  I thoroughly agreee that God gave us brains to use, and that applies to everything written in the Bible, not certain selected texts.  IMO, the Bible should be compared equally with contemporary literature of the time it was produced to understand the writers' worldview.  They described events in the only way they knew and could.  We should not limit our knowledge to theirs in any of the scientific disciplines:  anthropology, biology, geology and psychology, for a few.

If we are to literally interpret the Bible, as you say you do, shouldn't the Seminary be instructing their divinity students on biblical methods of healing appropriate to Bible times, rather than calling them outdated and inappropriate. .

Sean,

I've been reading quite a bit of information here, at EducateTruth's website, Spectrum, and Talk Origins (specifically your discussions w/Mr. Hershey).  What I find fascinating with respect to the concept of cognitive dissonance, a term that you have used not infrequently, is that even with the "6 literal days" camp, there's a separation between those who believe in (I'm going to simplify a great deal, so please forgive me) young rocks/young creation and old rocks/young creation.  Doesn't this cause one to pause, when discussing what is "literal" with regard to the Genesis story (stories?).  Some science teachers in k-12 Adventist schools believe old rocks/young creation.  Does this not create some sort of cognitive dissonance for young people as well?    

With regards,

Becci

"The Genesis account is an attempt by the author of this account to describe literal historical events."

It is an attempt to describe the ineffable by writers who were not present and had heard it repeated for aeons earlier.

Which of the two Genesis accounts is literal, and if so, there are far too many discrepancies to indicate that any single writer would overlook so many disparities.  Was man created before plants or grass had spouted; or was plant life created on the third day long before man on the sixth.  In Gen. 2:19, the same account reports that the animals and the birds were created after Adam himself.

 Ancient people were trying to explain why and how the world came to be when the found it.  There is no way to determine for certain which of the various Creation stories is the only correct one, but if literality is claimed for parts of the Bible, how is it determined those which aren't factual and literal.  Was there actually a talking serpent, and was there actually a talking donkey.  Literal reading would say "yes."  If anyone today observed such an event it would make the headlines. 

 Must one park his reason on the shelf while reading the Bible :-)

"The Genesis account is an attempt by the author of this account to describe literal historical events.

It is an attempt to describe the ineffable by writers who were not present and had heard it repeated for aeons earlier.

Which of the two Genesis accounts is literal, and if so, there are far too many discrepancies to indicate that any single writer would overlook so many disparities.  Was man created before plants or grass had spouted; or was plant life created on the third day long before man on the sixth.  In Gen. 2:19, the same account reports that the animals and the birds were created after Adam himself.

 Ancient people were trying to explain why and how the world came to be when the found it.  There is no way to determine for certain which of the various Creation stories is the only correct one, but if literality is claimed for parts of the Bible, how is it determined those which aren't factual and literal.  Was there actually a talking serpent, and was there actually a talking donkey.  Literal reading would say "yes." 

 Must one park his reason on the shelf while reading the Bible :-)

Hey Sean - I do not, nor have I ever had, a scientific need for a creator.  My need for a creator is emotional, spiritual, and fundamental to who I am as a person.  I don't care if he created my forefathers white, black, mongoloid, or hispanic.  I don't really even care if he created my ancestors not entirely standing upright or single cellular or multicellular.  I do believe that in some way, shape, or form, be it physically or emotionally or spiritually or some combination thereof, I am some sort of reflection of God's image.  But that's my faith-based conclusion.  I have little or no desire to dig deeper into the genetics or evolution, and I don't have to, since I can't fail a class or an exam.  The worst I can do is look simple before scientists at a dinner party.  And I've looked simple for many reasons on many occasions, so one more event won't hurt my feelings. 

Sean, you may be mistaking me for someone else.  I have no scientific evidence of the existence of God.  Nor do I have the need to find it.  I did not intend to put forth an "argument" regarding faith and healing.  Rather, I simply asked you a question.  I apologize for presenting you with a nonsensical question.

Sean,

A scientific theory is not just an interpretation of finding outs. It is primarily a prediction about what we will find out. It is undeniable that every single discovery in paleontology, genetics, radiometric dating, microbiology, has confirmed evolutionist predictions. . New fossils are discovered in the geological time zone they belong according to the theory of evolution. Take Tiktaalik for instance. Radiometric dating confirms relative dating. Our DNA tells the same story as the fossil record. We share false genes and retroviruses in our DNA with the chimps. Time and again a whale turns out to have hind-legs. Whale DNA confirms its kinship to hoofed terrestrial mammals. An almost complete chain of fossils ties the whale to a hoofed land mammal. And so on.

OTOH six-day-short-time creation-based predicted facts never turn out. We never found a rabbit in Cambrian or a man in Jurassic. Radiometric dating  never confirms the alleged young age of deep time fossils. Man is no “special order” by DNA or basic brain structure. Where are the animals, plants and men mixed chaotically by the flood in the same geological layer? Where are the traces of marsupials in Turkey? How come the flood created mountains only at the junction of tectonic plates? Why are not mountains equally worn out? When did a few glaciations occur. When did five mass extinctions take place? Creationism is falsified. Evolution is not. This makes the big difference.

You say random mutations + natural selection cannot account for accumulated complexity. Almost every geneticist disagrees and certainly not because is ideologically biased. It's the math. One favorable mutation/1million years in a population a few million large, is a fairly conservative estimation. We have 560 million years since the Cambrian explosion. That means 5.6 times for a 100% genetic difference. In fact, there's barely a 50% genetic difference among distant species.

Let's face the worst. We have 6 or 7 million years to account for 4% genetic difference between man and chimp, (which means 2% favorable mutations in at least 6 million years), plus a plethora of fossils and a dozen evolutive dead ends between the great apes and man. I wish it was not so. Contrary to your supposition I don't want to find a rationale for atheism. I found solace in the great controversy narrative and I still miss the black and white world of EGW.  But I am not going to fool myself.  As for atheism, it might be the cost of our failure to integrate faith and reason.

According to the SDA Church, the author of the Genesis account was directly shown the creation week in vision by God.

Our only argument is that Ellen White had the same experience six thousand years later. With the small difference that while the author of Genesis was shown waters above the firmament and the galaxy bellow it, Tigris, Euphrates and Niles plus one more river watering a flat earth contained between the Persian Golf, The Mediterranean, the African dessert and the black sea, Ellen was shown a planet with all the sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous rocks under earth “as bones”, metals and diamonds at the surface, no rugged mountains, grazing cats, unfading (but fruit yielding) flowers, no rain, no fermentation, and a simultaneous sabbath on a round earth.

In other words God gave Moses Sumerian cosmology and gave Ellen the 17^th century creationist geology of Thomas Burnett who knew nothing about the chemistry of rocks, the formation of diamonds and minerals, and the structure of earth as core, manta and crust.

This vision could have been presented to the author with the author observing from a limited Earth-bound perspective.

From an earthly perspective the Hubble telescope looks 13 billion years back in time and sees evolving stars and solar systems, the elements in the periodic table being built inside stars through nucleosynthesis, gold and rare isotopes born from exploding stars, black holes, collapsing worlds, volcanoes on other planets in our own solar system (most likely burning coals buried during the flood on Mars and the Moon), no systems revolving around the throne of God but an expanding universe, and last but not least, no hole in Orion.

But, in any case, the view of the Church is that this information was not given second-hand.

Is the “view of the church” supported by any solid exegesis or logical argument? Does the Bible report such a “first hand experience”? Who speaks for the Church? Do we have prophets in office like the Mormons or a pope speaking ex cathedra like catholics? What exactly is the authority of the Church to speak were the Bible is quiet? Have you read 1984 by George Orwell?

It is also the view of most Hebrew historians that the author of the Genesis account intended to write a consistent narrative of literal historical events.

And so did the author of Gilgamesh and the author of the Sumerian creation story and the author of the Enoch apocrypha. But it is also the view of most Hebrew historians that the Genesis account is a compilation and editing of earlier Canaanite traditions during the Babylonian exile and it was influenced by Babylonian mythology. In fact, the Hebrew scholars admit that the value of Genesis consist in its allegorical message.

Tell me, upon what basis do you believe that God even exists? - if you do believe in such nonsense that is...

So, the basis of your belief in God is the talking serpent and the talking donkey? I got good news for you: a cow was reported weeping in India. That settles the issue. If Aquinas and Kant only knew they would have spared us those futile arguments.

At one point in my life, I did believe in Santa Claus. 

Sean, here's the bizzarre aspect of your scientifically-based creation argument.  No matter how precise your comprehension of the technological aspect of genetic mutation and evolution, at some point, a giant leap of faith is required in order to truly be any sort of Christian.  You've obviously dedicated a great portion of your time and energy to scientifically prove that as a creationist, you are right, and that theistic (and other kinds of) evolutionists are completely wrong.  For what?  Even if you are able to scientifically prove the existence of God (a fact which theistic evolutionists do not dispute) how will you ever scientifically prove that He loves you?  What atomic formula will you use to prove it?  At some point, it all boils down to "for the Bible tells me so."

I would suggest that you, and you alone, find that SDAism places an emphasis on being a scientific religion. 

Your comment regarding respecting atheists more than theistic evolutionists is telling...   I, personally, find it odd that you'd rather have someone completely deny the existence of God than disagree with you on how he manufactured our planet.  To use your analogy, you look like the child who would rather play with kids who deny the existence of Santa because he disagreed with the other neighborhood kids about how he makes the toys.  To paraphrase, "Because I believe that Santa shops at Toys R Us, ultimately, I have to agree that the Santa of Elf-Manufacturing isn't really worth much more than no Santa at all as far as what He would mean for me as an individual." 

On a personal note, I think Richard Dawkins should have just avoided evolution entirely and stuck with Family Feud - I don't really like Al from Tooltime running the show. 

Sean,

Perhaps you misunderstand me when I describe cognitive dissonance with young people.  I'll use an example to make myself clearer:

Say a young person has grown up in a Seventh-Day Adventist home where the family adheres to a "literal" interpretation of Genesis.  Where *EVERYTHING* was made in six terrestrial days.  Then, this young person goes to school (long before a La Sierra University education) and gets told in science class that our understanding of creation is a little bit different and actually, the earth and elements of the universe were already in play before the actual six literal days of creation (there's the first creation and then there's the second one).  This young person is getting told two different stories and told both are true and absolutely adhere to a fundamental, literal reading of the Bible.  Which one is the fundamental, literal reading of the Bible?  You tell me that this young person is permitted to believe whichever and his/her science teacher is permitted to teach either and the Church takes no stand on this particular aspect of creation.   This spells cognitive dissonance to me, whether it's a Church-sanctioned dissonance or not.

Becci

Might I sugest that Dr. Pitman and those who support his views might wish to read two articles just published in the Summer 2009 issue of Spectrum with special care.   The rest of us will certainly appreciate the value of the arguments presented in both of these constructive contributions to the Adventist dialogue.

The first article is "Why Mathematics, Science, and Humanaties (including Religion) Don't Have a Quarrel" by Shandelle Henson.

One quote from this article: "I think that all disciplines are searching for truth and reality, but with different ways of knowing (epistomologies), different standards of "proof," and different scopes of questions that can be addressed."

The second article is "Change, Scripture, and Science: Good News for Adventist Thinking in the Twenty-first Century" by Fritz Guy.

Quotations from this article: "The first good news is the simple fact that Adventist thinking is, and has always been, open to change . . To insist that theology be limited to past knowledge is spiritually shortsighed, intellectually unrealistic, and theologically self-defeating . . . religious beliefs cannot remain what they were before the rise of modern science . . . One of the main contributions to constuctive dialogue between theology and science is the recognition of both the differences and the relationships between theological and scientific explanations."

Erv - FANTASTIC article that you brought to our attention by Shandelle Henson!  I have sat, silently for several hours over the past 2 or 3 days thinking about the amazing way she outlined the different ways that different people's brains work - it's the perfect, logical outline of why God is literally impossible to pin down by human beings.  Not only are the boundaries of our minds so finite, but within the human race, there are subgroups whose brains work in such different ways that we'd probably argue over why ice cream tastes so good.  I'd say it's the delicate blend of creaminess and sweetness, and Sean would disagree, and insist that the complex interaction between the taste buds and olfactory senses are why it is such a delightful treat. 

And Joe, it took me days to come up with a decent analogy to explain my thoughts, only to have you sum up those thoughts and Shandelle's article with the wonderfully concise declaration that "Logic most often seems consistent within a restricted context."  Well said! 

"Another example is the comparison of horses and donkeys, which are given different species names, and yet they do in fact share the same gene pool of functional options and are able to produce viable offspring."

We share many common genes with fruit flies, rats and mice also. For example transient receptor potential channels (TRPC), ryanodine receptors and calcium release activated channels such as Orai1. In fact you can use probes complimentary to mouse or rat TRPC's to study the genetic expression of these channels in human cells. In one of our recent studies we used mouse and human cDNA sequences to study the genetic expression of TRPC's in Ovine (sheep) neurons. Yet we did not have the sequence information for the ovine model. So how can we do that? Well you look for regions of the genes that are highly conserved and its likely you will find them conserved in other species. So our probes which would have worked in mouse or human cell models worked in the ovine cells. Thus Evolutionary theory predicts that species would share "common genes."

I was reading the word "proof" being thrown around in this thread. Science is not in the business of "proving." We can falsify a hypothesis and provide evidence to strengthen a hypothesis. But, given that scientific philosophy that knowledge is progressive, we do not use the term "proof." Try to get away with that term in a peer reviewed publication. You won't unless its a mistake on the part of the editorial reviewers.

Again well said Steve. Dr. Pitman's arguments on this thread suggesting that he respects atheists more than a those that hold to theistic evolution is interesting. So that latter in his eyes are the greater heretics. Makes me smile and shake my head. Indeed Dr. Pitman like the rest of us is stuck. We have all the evidence necessary to suggest that life changes, evolves, over time. The missing link here is the "God of the gaps." God never tells us how he/she did anything with regards to creation.

Rather late to the discussion, but Erv's satire was on target.  I might stretch the point just a bit further:  the tree of life in the Garden was the basis for longevity, and God removed human access to it so that sinners couldn't live forever.  We've also been taught that meat was allowed in the diet after the flood to further degrade lifespan.  In short, God intervened to shorten lifespan by at least one order of magnitude.  Based on this evidence from a literal reading of Genesis with some helpful interpretation by EGW, aren't Sean and his colleagues working against God's purposes when they seek to prolong human life?  Why don't they just tell their patients, "Sinner, God is taking your life, so get over it already?"  That is pretty much the Farrakhan view of God's role as quoted by MSNBC regarding the sad death of the Chicago student recently beaten to death: 

"Naturally, we wonder why such a beautiful life? Such a future we thought was waiting for this young man," Farrakhan said. "This was a special young man of righteous bearing who God took from us so young."

If one believes God directly intervenes to give and take life, which is pretty much the biblical view of the original prescientific writers/readers/hearers, then why seek to interfere with the process, Sean?