Here is a question I might ask my Sabbath School class to get the discussion going:

Of all the scientific proofs you studied this week, which one helps you see most clearly that the Bible is completely true?

How can a scientific proof show that the Bible is completely true IF a scientific proof cannot show that the Bible has scientifically incorrect statements in it?

People who do not allow science to show that the Bible is wrong, should not claim that it shows the Bible is right.

/Bevin

I believe that was james423's point. Its stated rather succinctly and cleverly I might add.

Now notice the quote from Thursday, given in the other lesson 6 thread



If you ask the vast majority of geology and biology scientists to do their thing - to do science on these deposits - they come back and tell you that the deposits clearly show hundreds of millions of years on life on Earth - directly contradicting a literal interpretation of Genesis

"Of all the scientific proofs you studied this week, which one helps you see most clearly that the Bible is completely true?"

If the lesson had actually covered the science - rather than cherry-picking and skimming it - the audience would have seen most clearly that the early chapters of the Bible read literally are not compatible modern science, and hence science does not offer any support for the complete correctness of the Bible.

If you want the Bible to be completely true, you have to reject vast portions of modern science.

/Bevin

Yet, that is what evolutionists do. They cherry-pick evidence that supports their beliefs.



Certainly they are compatible. However, they may not be seen as compatible with the official atheism of the NSF and other such organizations.



If you want evolution to be true, you have to reject a vast amount of evidence.

"If faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" how can I put any confidence in man's attempts to explain how God created and set things in order? Yet look how much "controversy" has done to cause people to study and to stand up for their beliefs. So good can come from what seems detrimental to ones faith.

annie

David's reaction is typical of most SDA.

Did anyone reading this participate in a SS class where the actual evidence and alternatives were discussed - or was it assumed that David's view is the correct one?

/Bevin

The situation is that there are people who take the Bible over science and "evidence". Man can always be faulty in his "evidence" or "knowledge" but God is never faulty. So even if evidence is studied by thousands of people and that evidence seems to "conclusively prove" that evolution is correct and creation is out of the realm of possibility, it's because their premise is that Science can be trusted over the Bible.

But there are many of us who trust the Bible over Science. I have seen many programs and heard many lectures by Creationist Scientists where creation seems to be proved in certain aspects (and no creationists don't have the answers to everything but neither do evolutionists) But faith in God doesn't require man's proof. It is nice when God gives man a glimpse into the intricacies of his creation but proof isn't needed for humans to simply trust that what God says is correct.

The moderators have already ruled that the SS discussion forums are not the right place for discussing the actual science v bible topic.

I am more interested in finding out whether SDA SS classes are having such discussions, or is it assumed that the science is wrong.

/Bevin

It is true what the SDA Commentary says that learned men who go against the Bible are usually proved wrong at some point in the future. Of course, there are some things in the Bible that have to be accepted on faith - just like there are those scientific theories that definitely have to be accepted on faith.

Something else I find interesting about evolutionary science - those who believe in this theory don't want any other idea about origins even discussed in public schools. Creationists can have this view, too, but I find it interesting that the people who shouldn't have anything to lose if their theories were investigated (namely scientists who are supposed to be neutral observers) are the ones who scream the loudest if anything about creationism is taught. Perhaps they are still burned from all those who were burned for not believing creationism.

Creationist SDA do not disregard true science, as there is alot that is truth. However, science is only true when it does not go against the Bible. God is the creator and he does not let things happen by chance. He is a God of freedom in that we can believe what we want, but our beliefe doesn't change the truth, no much evidence we pile up for or against the Bible. The Bible can stand by itself. It is God's word to mankind. When we get to heaven, all the questions that evolution has posed that creationsts can't explain and all the quesitons that creationists have posed that evolution can't answere will be explained. Then we will see what an incredible creator we really do have.

When the basis of something is faulty then the entire structure is affected. For instance, if one assumes that 2 plus 2 equals five then no matter what amount of knowledge one has of doctorate level math, the end result or answere will be incorrect. Knowing all the right processes while having the basis wrong, makes the entire answere incorrect.

The same thing with science. We have to choose whether human logic and understanding, no matter how incredible, is going to be flawed if it's foundation is flawed.

The only foundation that can be trusted beyond a shadow of a doubt is God. His word is true and he is the creator.

I assume that the SS classes ended up being like this topic. It is okay with the moderators to present arguments which discredit evolution, but not okay to present arguments which defend it or which discredit creationism.

No wonder I don't want to sit in a SS class ever again.

/Bevin

In my SS class both creation and evolution were discussed but we took the Bible as the basis and the conclusion would not have been enjoyed by an evolutionist. The problem is that evolutionists see their basis as credible. Creationist don't see it as credible not because Science can't be impressive on the side of evolution but because it disagrees at it's basis with the Bible. Either the Bible is the basis for truth or it isn't. If it isn't then any topic can be discussed from any angle and many conclusions can be reached. But if the Bible is the basis, although there might be slight variations in the conclusions the basis for those conclusions will always be the same. This is not a head in the sand approach. This is a trust in an almighty God who knows us better than we know ourselves because He created us.

Actually it is trust in a particular interpretation of the long and complex history of the Bible.

The failure of Christianity in general and the SDA church to teach this history has led to the current weird situation where the assumptions of the uninformed and the knowledge of the scholars is widely disparate.

/Bevin

It isn't an interpretation to take God at his word. It's trus in a God who had a direct hand in history and in how the Bible was put together as well as the inspiration of the Bible. (Despite that I can still think you are a decent person, can't I? :) )

There are many examples of how Jesus believed in the OT including the flood.

He said in Matthew 24:37-38 “But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. “For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark.”

No matter what some scientists says about a world-wide flood having never occured, I would prefer to trust my life to the God who knows the end from the beginning. A God who created me and you. A God who says that we are not an accident but that we have a purpose. A God whose word we can trust no matter what man has to say about it. A God who can recreate in us a new heart. A God who is coming back to take us home to live with him eternally.

I trust God to put together a plan of salvation that includes a Bible, a spiritual community, and a scientific community -
a plan of salvation that does not require a Bible that is scientifically accurate.

It is either that, or believe in a God who has created a world that is a huge lie.

I see you as creating an incomplete set of choices - you include the possibility that either the Bible is completely right, or badly flawed. There are other choices.

/Bevin

God never lies and if he says he created the world then it is a matter of believing God or not believing God. In my opinion there is no third option. Science is only science when it agrees with the one who created science in the first place. God gave us free choice to disbelieve him and that is everyone's right but it doesn't change the facts.

(I still don't dislike you, I just believe that the basis for truth is God and His word and if anything doesn't agree with that, then it isn't truth. You have a right to believe anything you wish because God didn't create robots, but in my opinion God's truth never changes regardless of any human opinion or research or understanding. )

That is, as you state, an opinion - and it is the opinion that leads directly to your final outcome. But what if that opinion is wrong?

God never lies - but sometimes we mishear or misunderstand what He is saying.

God never lies - but He speaks to us through many media.

We have contradictory evidence...

A literal reading of an English translation of an copy of what someone wrote down that someone reported to Luke that Jesus said

contradicts

what tens of thousands of researchers and I see when we go and look at the rocks and the fossils - after all, it is really hard to hide the White Cliffs of Dover, the Grand Canyon, Hawaii, Ayer's Rock, etc

Faced with a choice between

(a) God being deceptive in the Bible
(b) God being deceptive in the Earth
(c) It being incorrect to treat the Bible, with its complex origin, as scientifically inerrant when read literally
(d) The vast array of scientific evidence being incorrectly understood even in its largest aspects

I choose (c) - I choose the alternative that means God is truthful and did not create the world as a huge deception.

/Bible

I say opinion because I wish to be kind. Perhaps it would be better said that based on my trust in God and in the Bible, I have discovered for myself that God never lies. That God is not deceptive when he says he created the arth. If we can pick and choose whatever is not "provable" and say that it didn't happen then we will eventually get rid of any other truth the Bible teaches. This is dangerous ground.

Many Scientists have have at their basis the notion that the Bible is incorrect because they "see so much evidence to the contrary."

One can make a communistic or socialistic speach out of the most democratic president if you chop it up enough. Just so, what seems to be in support of evolution may be in such support of creation that it will one day be laughed at, just like medical science has changed a great deal through the centuries.

I do not believe that God would do the following if it were not true.
1. state so many times that he is the creator,
2. that he gave us the Sabbath as a memorial of that creation.
3. that he created the world in 6 days
4. quote the old testament as the truth if it weren't the truth.
5. he himself would refer to the flood as an event in history if it didn't happen. Would equate it with the second coming unless of course the second coming is as much a myth as some people think the flood is
6. that he would in one place say he was the creator and then later say "but when you find out differently I can live with that".

I believe to the very core of my being that
1. the Bible is true, that God can be trusted explicitly
2. that God means it when he says there is nothing too hard for him, (which would include creation and the recreation of the human heart)
3. that he didn't allow part of the Bible to be included in the Bible if it wasn't supposed to be there
4. that it does matter whether you trust God completely or man's interpretation of what God says.

I am glad you think God is truthful.

God inspired men to write the Bible, therefore God is not going to inspire them to write something that is untruthful. One day in heaven, we will look back on some of the "proofs of creation" and realize how little we really did know and how much more incredibly sound are the "real proofs" and we will look back on our "proofs of evolution" and realize how much we missed because we left God's truth of Him being the creator God out of the picture.

or, some day in heaven, we will look back at the vast amount of evidence that the long age of the earth and evolution is correct, and wonder how we ever let ourselves get so mired in the traditions of organised mainstream Christianity that we forgot that God inspires people to record their personal experiences - misunderstandings and all...

Until I looked at detail at the evidence, I also found it easy to categorize as dismissable. It was not until I spent years looking through the evidence, and watching the evidence mount up, that I finally understood the the human traditions of the fundamentalist churches could be wrong...

/Bevin

That would be correct for anything written without God's inspiration. But since God inspired men to write the Bible he would not inspire an error. It isn't human tradition, it isn't a church's interpretation, it is God's word that we are dealing with. If we can pick and choose what we think fits with the mounting evidence and throw away what doesn't fit that evidence then we are placing human knowledge and expertise above God's word.

Taylor, I offer this for you. Evolution as a theory of Origins is contrary to several foundational philosophical principals.

As C.S. Lewis indicated, "If the universe had no meaning, we should never have discovered that it had no meaning."

According to evolution, we evolved eyes because it was an advantage to perceive light. But there can be no valid reason to develop an organ for something which does not exist.

Right! :)

Utter nonsense, both statements.

(a) You can't even define the concept of "the universe has meaning".

(b) Light has existed on this planet since it was formed around the sun, and even the ability to detect and react to nothing but the intensity of light - which requires relatively simple cells - has a distinct advantage over not doing so

It is utter nonsense arguments like these that show just how inadequate the creationist stance is in practise.

/Bevin

Except that we know that he did - there are significant examples of simple factual errors in the Bible, starting with the obvious concept in the OT of a flat earth

/Bevin

Well Bevin I am not going to argue with you. I respect you as a person but I couldn't disagree more strongly. God is the author of truth and in him there is no darkness or untruth at all. He would never inspire error.....To believe that God would inspire error that humans must pick through, puts the human in controll of what is truth and not God. That to me is very dangerous ground.But you can believe what you want to.

AND again, I do not wish any harm on you nor do I dislike you. I just have as strong of ideas and convictions are you do, on opposite sides of the pole.

Both science in general, and evolution in particular, are attempts to find meaning in the universe.

I guess that depends on how you interpret the words the "circle of the earth" in Isaiah 40:22.

From this I assumed that the Bible was either talking about the shape of the earth or its orbit, that is, that the earth revolves around the sun.

If the early scientists had read this verse, they may have rethought their erroneous views. But in those days I don't know if they would have had access to the Bible or would have had to accept the church's interpretation of it.

The Bible is not a scientific book. It was not written to people with a scientific mindset.

When it says the world was created in seven days because God spoke, it does not give us a scientific or technical explanation of how that worked.

To say we don't know how it worked would be a scientific statement. To say it's impossible would not be, unless qualified with "with our current knowledge."

The problem isn't one of science OR theology, but of imagination.

I don't know how to determine whether or not a universe "has meaning". This phrase carries no information content to me.

Science is merely an attempt to develop rules that enable us to predict what happens next in a specific situation.

/Bevin

Pythagoras, around 550BC, stated that the Earth was round.
Isaiah is written around that time.

Look at http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Flat_Earth.htm

Basically the ancients in the Middle East before the Greeks thought the Earth was flat - and it shows in their sacred writings. I don't know what the Chinese thought when.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth



/Bevin

By that association you wish to show automatically that David must be wrong, but that would be a precious argument. Why not show by evidence that David's responses are without foundation?

Do you believe that God inspired "errors"?

You call one such error "the obvious concept" of a flat earth in the Old Testament. I would be interested to know exactly what verses seem to you to make this concept so obvious?

I don't deny that people of that period--and any other, including our own-- have held many false concepts of the earth and the universe. I don't think the Bible was written in order to correct people's views of those matters. No doubt the Hebrews' views of many things was similar to the views of most of the peoples of that time and location. On the other hand, God managed to communicate everything through His prophets that will save us if you and I study and obey the Scriptures. Do you believe that?

Because the specific topic of what are the evidences for evolution and why specific anti-evolution arguments are invalid has been ruled by the moderators/owner to be inappropriate for a public forum of this bulletin board.

That is exactly what I believe - that the Bible contains the misunderstandings of its authors about many things where they were simply matching the views of peoples of that time and location, and that God did not see a need to correct those misunderstandings in the process of interacting with and inspiring them - nor to keep those misunderstandings out of the poetry, letters, histories, etc that they wrote.

It is the people that are inspired, not all the details in the stories they propagated.

/Bevin

As usual, I come back to the forum after long absences. But it is good to "hear familiar voices." Bevin is still around to keep us from being satisfied with "usual responses." Hi Bevin! Having taught some high school science, but theology having the upper hand in number of college/graduate credits (!), I can understand your (Bevin's)frustrations. My scientific background cringes when I hear some of the "creation science" that is broadcast over Christian radio stations. However, Bevin, aren't you talking the opposite extreme for a Christian? Although I believe the Bible writer is inspired with God's salvation message rather than his words (and his scientific understanding), I find your faith too strong in "evolution" (whatever school you accept). Science can test and give evidence of what is happening, and so can give some fairly good idea of what happened in the past as far as natural processes. But if there is a God (and both you and I know there is!), then some things can happen out of the testable norms--or is He God? Origins of course are non-testable. I guess I find even a 7 day creation more plausable (once we allow ourselves to believe there is a God)than a complete mechanical beginning. Of course, as my Biology professor said, "after creation we as SDAs have to be some of the greatest evolutionists since we have a lot less time for adaptations to take place!)"

It has been my understanding all along that Bevin believes in Evolution, an old earth, and that the flood was a myth that didn't happen in a world wide way, but I could be wrong. I like Bevin even though we do not agree on that topic.

The real problem between scientific evidence that is thought to support evolution and the Biblical record really has nothing to do with science. Rather, it has to do with the paradigm, or world view, that supplies the basic axioms required to do science. Of these, the most important are uniformity of law and process across time and space. If these two axiom are not valid out there and back then as they are here and now, then science cannot be interpreted into any past event--a few hours ago, yesterday, decades ago, years and years ago. And we have to also assume that they will be working tomorrow or anything we do today becomes irrelevant.

We know that God is the same today, yesterday and forever, therefore one would expect a universe He invents, designs and calls into existence to have uniformity of law and process across time and space. And so, a worldview that starts with God creating the universe supplies the axioms needed to do science.

It is important to note, that these axioms do not come from science [they must come first and so cannot come from science] but rather, from a Biblical worldview philosophy. The Bible is not a scientific book, but it does supply the axioms upon which science based.

Amos tells us that God does nothing without reveling his plan to his servent the prophets. So, he has revealed to us what he has done. His eyewitness testimony gives us certain facts that are not subject to scientific review.
1. The universe was invented, designed and created.
2. The biosphere on this planet was created some 6000 years ago.
3. Adam and Eve sinned a few years after the Creation Week.
4. There was a global cataclysm that destroyed the entire world.

The Christian scientist starts with these facts and interprets scientific acquired data within this worldview.

There is another worldview, one which most of those who work within it are not even aware of, that also provides the basic axioms for science. Carl Sagan defined it well in the first sentence of his book COSMOS: "The COSMOS is all there is, has ever been, or ever will be."

This self-existing cosmos obviously needs no one to create it. And it's laws and processes have always existed. Thus this philosphical proposition--AKA Naturalism--is a foundation upon which science can be done. And can be interpreted within.

There are three corrolaries which logically derive from Naturalism:
1) Abiogenesis is an indisputed FACT. Since there was no life, but now there is, and there is no Creator to mess with it, then life must have come into existence following natural laws.
2) Evolution of all life forms from a single source is an indisputed FACT. Since there was once only a single life form, and now there are millions, and there is no Creator to mess with it, then all species must have come about following natural laws. The only thing evolutionists debate is HOW evolution happened.
3) Deep Time is a FACT. Since the COSMOS has always been, then time has no begining and so millions and billions and trillions of years is expected.

All of this is FACT before the first scientific experiment is even considered. And all sience is done and interpreted within this paradigm

So, back to the begining. The real choice is which paradigm or worldview are you going to do your science within. For most of science this is no problem. Any science done during our lifetime is the same regardless of paradigm. But when it comes to the historical sciences of geology, paleontology, cosmology, archaeology, and anthropology the choice of paradigm becomes critical.

Are you going to go with Naturalism and reinterpret the Bible to fit?

Or, are you going to believe that Jesus was with God, and He was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. He who is worthy to receive glory and honor and power, for He created all things, and by His will they were created and have their being. He who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it? [John, Revelation]

If you believe in Him to be your saviour how is it a stretch of logic to believe He created just like He says?

It's not about science. It's about what you choose to believe.

Allen Roy
Paleontology Student at MSU.

Amen Allen Roy! Very very well said! I couldn't agree more! This is about who you choose to believe in.

Welcome to Club Adventist!

Excellent post! Sure glad you're here.

I agree, it basically comes down to a choice, and this choice reveals the heart. God made it so it requires a choice. He could make the evidence so overwhelming that no one could decide to reject Him. For instance, if He were to come to each individual and reveal Himself in a brilliant, dazzling show of force and power. But He doesn't do that because He honors our freedom to choose. I know today that I chose God-- and still do choose to submit to Him and His righteousness-- because of the work of the Holy Spirit. It is not my doing, all I did was recognize my need and say yes to Him, and even that was His work. And the Bible promise is, He will keep doing it.

Now if the Iron Deacon weighs in, we will have a complete deck.

Allen claims that evolution requires some undisputed facts, that are (in fact :-)) disputed hypotheses.

Allen forgets that FACTS are things you measure.



"Life" is not so easy to define. There are very simple self-replicating systems, there are somewhat more complex ones, and then there is stuff like us. There is no point in the continuum from chemistry to biology that is obviously impossible to bridge.

However, while it is obvious looking around us that life exists today, and it is obvious looking in the rocks that life in the rocks that appear old is very different and much simpler than exists around us today, and that life in the very old rocks is even simpler to non-existent - it is not a FACT it is a HYPOTHESIS that life started with simple self-replicating systems, and evolved.

The Intelligent Design school looks at the same rocks, and sees a Creator stepping in at various points and making tweaks - but as Christian's they agree that life on earth is the result of billions of years of evolution - but they see God stepping it and helping it over some bumps.



No, it is not.

There is no requirement that there was once a single source of life. It is quite possible that we are looking at the result of several different variations on self-replicating systems merging and interacting. On the other hand, the chirality issues suggest that there may have been a single specific-chirality reaction that spread fast enough to stop others developing.

There is also the panspermia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia) idea, which is worth consideration. We know there are complex organic chemicals in space, and we are looking on Mars for relics of live there.

Furthermore this would be a HYPOTHESIS, not a FACT.



No it is not, it is a HYPOTHESIS that results in very accurate predictions of what we see on Earth and in the universe



Nonsense. None of this stuff was even thought of when the first science experiments were done.

/Bevin

I hope you are not implying that the millions of evolution-believing christian's are actually revealing that they have wicked or rebellious hearts

The choice between creation and evolution does not reveal the Christian's commitment to Christ, any more than the choice between vegetarian/meat-eating or dancing/non-dancing or even sabbath/sunday.

It simply shows that these are complex issues that we should be tolerant of, and should stop being so adamant about.

/Bevin

If we trust God's word we will believe it. We can love people no matter their views but God's truth does not change to suite science or people's opinions. Many people sincerely believe things that are not right, but when faced with the truth in God's word then it is up to their decision of whether they are going to follow God and what he says or not. True we need to be patient with people because for some it may take a while to come to a full understanding of God's word, while others choose to instantly trust God regardless of what this truth goes against. But in the end it does come down to a choice on every area or teaching of the Bible of whether we are going to trust God in the face of unpopularity, in the face of human's opinions or "evidence" or not. It is not up to us to judge who will be saved and who will be lost because only God knows the human heart, it's experiences, and it's feelings. But God's truth never changes, not for opinion, not for the experts, not for all the "evidence" against it. God is God and he knows so much more than we do, no matter how intelligent we may be.

So many times people believe that the Sabbath, that the beliefe in creation or in any other doctrine or truth that is found in the Bible is somehow meant to make our lives more miserable. If only they could see what a blessing it is to put God in the driver's seat and say "I may not understand everything, but I want you to lead and direct my life. I want to follow everything that is in Your word, be it unpopular or laughable by my friends or the community around me." The Sabbath has a blessing that is not experienced in any other day. Why would we want to miss out on it. (And yes, I've talked to people who kept Sunday just as carefully as Adveitsts keep Sabbath and they have told me there was a huge difference in keeping the Sabbath, a real peace and rest.)Following God isn't a burden, it is a priviledge. God is where all truth ends. He is something we can anchor our life to. He can be trusted completely and fully. There is no other source we can go to that is like that, no other source than God and his Word that can be trusted at all times.

(Sorry on the typos for some reason suddenly I can't go in and fix them as the "edit" option has disappeared even though it has only been seconds since I posted the above. Oh well.. :) )

Your very first statement shows that you completely missed what I said. Try learning to read for comprehension. That really helps when you are trying to make a cogent argument.

What I said was: [in case you miss it the second or third time] Science cannot be done unless certain axioms are first accepted as true. These axioms (i.e. uniformity of law and process across time and space) come from philosophies or worldviews. The Bible supplies a worldview from which the axioms needed for science are drawn. And the evolutionism/creationism debate is all about worldviews and nothing about science.

Perhaps you ought to look up what a fact really is: [from dictionary.com]

FACT
1. Something that actually exists; reality; truth:
2. Something known to exist or to have happened:
3. A truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:
4. Something said to be true or supposed to have happened:

There are many facts that have nothing to do with science or things you measure.

Abiogenesis, Evolutionism, and Deep Time are just such logical facts—conclusions derived from the worldview of Naturalism. It is irrelevant that naïve early naturalists and oblivious modern scientists may think that these are hypotheses. The fact remains that just like Naturalism; they are not and cannot be hypothesis because they can never be disproven.

Life is easy to define—any organism that is composed of cells—from the single cell to multi-cellular organisms. Any chemical reaction that is not a cell is not life.