Creation 7th day folly

There is an interesting article and conversation on Atoday.com regarding the trademark violations of the self described Creation Seventh day Adventist church (sometimes identified with 7^th instead of seventh, hereafter CSDA). The article's title and opening line reads:

“Should These Men Go To Jail Because of a Church Name?

Submitted: May 16, 2012

By Andrew Hanson
Should the Seventh-day Adventist Church seek to put people in jail because of their non-violent religious beliefs? That is the bottom line to the long story of a little, independent congregation and the General Conference attorneys.”

As a news article it begins somewhat poorly as the SDA church never set out to send anyone to jail as there really is no jail sentence available for trademark violations, they simply sought legal protection from the misuse of their trademark. The whole idea of jail comes from the CSDA members putting back up signs which the court had taken down. Thus the whole affair with jail no longer has anything to do with the SDA church but with violations of court orders. If the CSDA folks want to pretend to be martyrs for violating US and international laws that is their business but it is hardly something that can be blamed upon the SDA denomination.

For a background of the story see the video links on the above Atoday.com article as well as look at the actual findings of the court in 2006 against the CSDA group. Case No. D2006-0642 Here are a the main decision findings from that case:

The Panel does not believe that the freedom to practice religion or the deviation from fundamental doctrine constitute defenses cognizable under the Policy to invalidate the protection afforded Complainant by its registered Marks.

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant, for purposes of this proceeding, has enforceable rights in the Marks.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Marks in which the Complainant has rights pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

The Panel finds that persons interested in finding religious information are Internet users and consumers within the meaning of the Policy. Respondent is using Domain Names which are confusingly similar for purposes of the Policy. Therefore, he is attracting Internet users and misleading consumers searching for Complainant.

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii).

An additional factor found to support a finding of bad faith is Respondent’s actual knowledge of the Complainant’s Marks when Respondent registered the Domain Names. When considered with the attraction of Internet users using a likelihood of confusion, the Panel finds this evidence sufficient to support a finding that the Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).

Respondent advises the Panel that he has been commanded by YAHWEH to employ the name Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church in describing the true religion and fellowship of His spiritual kingdom on Earth. Respondent must obey God rather than men.

The Panel finds that the defense of waiver offered by Respondent is not sufficient to nullify the bad faith of Respondent. 
 

Now it seems from the conversation on the Atoday website from CSDA members that their claim to not follow the judicial decisions of United States courts is because they feel that God has given them the name and they must follow God. The followers also make the point that because the CSDA group does not follow the courts ruling that they be held in contempt of court; they claim to be subject to being jailed because of the SDA church. Of course if there was no governmental action to back up a judicial finding there would be no reason for courts at all. That the government takes these actions is in the courts interest as well as in the plaintiffs interest thus the use of contempt recommendations by SDA Lawyers. I would rather see our courts maintain effectiveness by holding those in contempt when the court's ruling is violated. They can always appeal and when the court asks for simple and reasonable actions there is little excuse for the CSDA to refuse and expect no consequences for their contempt of court.

Here are some of the CSDA comments about why they must refuse to follow the courts ruling:

----

2) We believe that He has given us a name that reflects this faith, and although it was always clear it would cause controversy, we did not shrink from this duty because of the fear of man's judgment.  The idea that Christ still speaks to His people seems to immediately trigger the adrenaline glands of some. --David Aguilar

----

I would be pleased if you are willing to understand what the issue here really is.  We did not and will not just flip a coin and choose a "name for ourselves."  We have not co-opted a corporate name for our own benefit.  Those who make such accusations are deluded liars. (It actually hurts me to speak with such force of words.)

Two believers in Jesus and the Adventist message saw visions from God that commanded us to take the name "Creation Seventh Day Adventist" as the name of our faith and practice of religion. "Let every fact be established by two or more..."

Many believe Moses received tablets of stone on which the commandments of God were engraved with His own finger.  "Creation Seventh Day Adventist" is engraved in every heart of our brethren by the Spirit of YAHWEH.  If this were the case for you, would you give credibility to the advice of other "helpful souls?" -- Pastor Chick

----

If one actually followed this kind of logic then anything regardless of legal finding would have to be accepted as part of religious liberty. “We were told by two of our members who saw visions from God that we should break into the video store to supply our church with audio and video equipment”? This is the real danger of these CSDA folks. They pretend to be standing up for religious liberty when they are not at all standing for it they are destroying it. Their arguments would make all laws useless and all deluded people free from prosecution. They would destroy the entire nation because of their selfishness. This logic is seen by another comment of Pastor Chick who misapplies the Roman/Jewish conspiracy against Christ 2000 years ago with the court case in 21^st century America. He writes:

You posed the following questions for contemplation:--Should the Seventh-day Adventist Church seek to put people in jail because of their non-violent religious beliefs?
I would suggest a parallel question:  Should the Jewish Church have sought to have the Christ arrested because of His religious beliefs that led to His authoritative claims?
 --Is it really necessary for our Church to put these two men in jail?
My parallel question:  Was it really necessary for the Jewish Church leaders to influence Pilate in arresting the Prince of Glory and putting Him to death?
 --Do church members and pastors think that this is an appropriate way for the Church to deal with splinter groups?
My parallel question:  Did the constituency of the Jewish Church think the treatment of Christ by their leaders was appropriate for His dissident doctrine, divisive activities, and authoritative claims?
 --Is there a Bible basis for enforcement efforts that go so far as to put people in jail?
My parallel question:  Was there an Old Testament basis for the efforts put forth by the “leading men” to have Christ arrested, scourged, and eventually killed?

Here again we see the self centered nature of their argument. To disagree with their positions is equivalent to the persecution of Jesus Christ. They assume they are the Christ position, they are the good and true followers. Again Pastor Chick when responding to the religious liberty position of a previous commenter:

Pastor_Chick

If you knew my Father, you would know me.  If you loved my Father, you would love me.  If you did the will of my Father, you would appreciate the works that I do, for they are the works of Him who lives in me.

There is no confusion in the Church of the Living God.  His people are perfectly untied as one with the Father and His Son.  They do always those things that please Him.  What they hear from the Father, they do. Amen.

Later he writes:

Good point!  After all, God's armies have always been the large ones, right?

Let's consider the days of Noah, for example.  The Messiah said it will be same when He comes back; so, you DO have a good 92% on your side.  But, I will rely on the prophecy of One who said, "Few there be that find it."  I hope you understand -- this is no "riddle."  It is life and death – eternal.

Here is the argument that because they have been ruled against and that most people do not support their position they must be on God's side. The majority is the enemy so if one is on a minority side they are on the side of God.

We need to pray for and if you know any of these people help them learn how to actually think rather then to manipulate information. This does seem to be a true lunatic fringe, and there should be a good deal of concern for mainstream Adventists as well that our denomination seems to breed people that think so strangely. Has the teaching of Adventism over the last 100 plus years created these strange offshoots. Now that is an interesting question.

A Response to When is logic illogical

There is a common problem we see with many Adventists as they talk about Genesis.  They assume if you do not accept the literalistic six days of creation then you don’t believe in God’s involvement at all. One would think that with the theory of Theistic Evolution that would not be a problem (“Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation” Wikipedia). It incorporates the divine supernatural activity of God in the direction of evolution. But most Traditional Adventists find it easier to create the straw man argument. That argument is that of naturalistic evolution where random chance and life from non life is the only explanation offered against their literal view of six day creation. That is why so many of them such as Clifford Goldstein and David Read so commonly present the opposition to their literal creationism as Seventh-day Darwinians or Darwinians respectively.  As this blog has pointed out in a previous article both of those terms are inaccurately used. Seventh-day Darwinians without even having a definition! Even when frequently used by Clifford Goldstein, he can’t be bothered to define his own term, it simply is meant as a slam against his opponents. Not based upon what they believe or espouse but upon his distortion of their beliefs. That is why his opponents are never mentioned by name or their statements are ever quoted.

This atmosphere in the Adventist media has pervaded the dialog so when Bruce Justinen wrote his response to my article “the need for logic” he presents logic as opposed to the supernatural. This technique allows them to buttress their literal creation story as supernatural and if you don’t accept their traditional literal version of the creation story you don’t accept anything supernatural. This is how Bruce expressed it:

For some, this is not good enough, they must know.  So they hypothesize, they imagine, they fill in the blanks, they logic that which it is not subject to logic.  “The fiery furnace, Jonah and the great fish, the sun moving backward, the axe head floating ...”

The Straw man arguments are logical fallacies, but they are a frequent method of manipulation…at least until the fallacy is pointed out and then it is clear that the logic of their position is in fact not logical but a fallacy stated as a fact. The art of propaganda is to keep repeating something long enough that people then accept it. But merely repeating a lie does no one any good. It does not lead to a good discussion and it certainly does not lead to any sort of reasoned argument and will never lead to a satisfactory conclusion.

But the original question is not is there or was there supernatural activities. The very term theistic evolution should disabuse someone of that idea.  That it does not, shows that their position is not based upon logic but upon misinformation. The use of misinformation is contrary to a well reasoned argument (logic). Let us remind ourselves of the definition of logic:

1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.

3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.

5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

That the logical principles should be overlooked because one claims supernatural beliefs is perhaps one of the strangest arguments one could make. As Bruce wrote:

“What I think he fails to see is that logic has not been cast aside by.  It is that Adventism has always chosen the logic of the Supernatural over the logic of science.   We simply turn to the Supernatural.  If I may paraphrase Webster “not subject to explanation by Me...or anyone I know.”

“But as Christians we make choices as to what we will believe.  We realize we do not have all of the information – all of the time.  The Bible does not claim to give us all of the information on Creation or a host of other subjects, it gives us what it gives us, there may be more, there probably is – a lot more.  I don’t know.  And there lies the conundrum – I don’t know.”

First there is no logic of the Supernatural. We can’t study the supernatural we study what others have said about the supernatural and with logic we make inferences of possible relationships between the natural and the supernatural. Theistic evolution supposes supernatural activity that correlates with the physical evidence on the planet and the visible universe.  Thus life is still produced by God but the technique used is not that assumed by traditions.  As science learns more we have redefined our interpretations, as we see evidence which makes our previous belief seem less probable.  God is not removed but his methods of activity are interpreted in less traditional ways.

If Christians were more logical they would see that their interpretations of the Bible have indeed changed through time as people learn more. As Bruce says he does not know. When one does not know something the logical thing to do is not to simply stand on the traditions but to acknowledge that there may in fact be other methods of interpretation of the Biblical stories. So as he says the Bible does not claim to give us all the information on Creation so why do so many Christians feel that their traditional interpretation is the only possible solution. If they don’t know, if their answers are clearly inadequate why not allow for the possibility of other methods of interpretation and other theories of origins.

The false logic of only accepting the tradition of a literal 6 day creation or young earth creation and then distorting other Christian theories of origins is the problem.  The discussion gets nowhere because one side is trying to use logic and the other refuses to use logic, pretending that they are, but in fact treating their beliefs and traditions as if those things represent logical arguments. This is not to say that this is the problem of all Christians, for there are people working in Creation Science or Intelligent Design or Theistic Evolution, all these can work on understanding the Creation yet none of them have or are likely to present a scientific theory of origins, since each has to use the supernatural and the supernatural is outside of our investigative processes.

We can’t just resort to supernaturalism as a belief on origins because then we have nothing more than a series of religions each with their own supernatural origin beliefs. To make the case that way we would have to prove our particular belief to be the only possible religion and once we have proved our religion alone is right then we would submit that are particular belief is the correct view of supernatural origins. Our logic then will be used to set forth our particular religion or denomination or church as the correct and only true and verifiable belief. That is a losing task, and it deflects from God to a religious tradition which is usually simply a group of narrowly accepted interpretations.

We will ultimately get nowhere if we ignore sound reasoning and following logical explanations for our beliefs. To ignore the scientific evidence is not logical or persuasive, we must do better, and we must, as Bruce said admit we don’t know and if we don’t know we can’t exclude options and possibilities and alternative explanations. Right now our church is at that threshold…will they be humble enough to go forward and seek to progress in understanding or go backward and assume that only our tradition is the acceptable belief for our church and its members.

When is Logic Illogical; guest Comment

                                       WHEN IS LOGIC ILLOGICAL

                            (A response from Bruce Justinen 5/2012)

As we punt, bat and kick around the continuing debate over the validity of the Creation story of Genesis 1 and 2, as literal or not, we should consider the logic of the supernatural.  Is it possible that our purported logical thinking is in fact illogical?

Webster’s Dictionary defines “supernatural” as: “...not subject to explanation according to natural laws;”  “Being beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature, miraculous.”  In other words, not necessarily subject to logical explanation or analysis.   Stephen J. Gould, the now diseased Harvard biologist was quite comfortable acknowledging that there were things he did not know and in fact were not knowable to him by the science (logic) for which he was so esteemed.   He termed it “non overlapping magisterium.”   He was right in his basic premise, but perhaps naïve in feeling a neat line could be drawn between the realm of faith and that of reason.  And of course, he and others wished to draw that line far into what most Christians would complain was in fact God’s territory!

1 Corinthians 1: 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:  “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”  20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

This verse is only applicable in the context of the “supernatural”.  That is, it would be “foolishness” to label everything we merely disagree with as “foolishness” just because we have these handy-dandy verses available to us as Christians.  It is only when there is a conflict with the Supernatural, the “not being subject to explanation...” that we can lay hold of I Corinthians 1:18-20.  The formula applies only when Science is contrary to the Supernatural.

We do not seek to be silly here.  Science, Physics, Genetics, Paleontology, etc. all have merit. In fact, our standard of living, the comfort of our homes, our jobs and lifestyles are dependent on the sciences.  I am not debating science or even evolution, I do not understand nor do I act as an apologist for God in this debate, He does not need one.  There is simply too much I can say “I don’t know” and “I haven’t heard all God has to say on this yet”.  And I probably won’t hear His side until after Jesus comes.

For some, this is not good enough, they must know.  So they hypothesize, they imagine, they fill in the blanks, they logic that which it is not subject to logic.  “The fiery furnace, Jonah and the great fish, the sun moving backward, the axe head floating ...”

Ron Corson wrote recently “What appears to be happening in Adventism today is that logic has been cast aside. When we lose that we have nothing. We have no reason to exist and we have no reasonable way to fulfill a mission for God and no way to fulfill that mission because we have lost the key elements to communicate.”

What I think he fails to see is that logic has not been cast aside by.  It is that Adventism has always chosen the logic of the Supernatural over the logic of science.   We simply turn to the Supernatural.  If I may paraphrase Webster “not subject to explanation by Me...or anyone I know.”

But as Christians we make choices as to what we will believe.  We realize we do not have all of the information – all of the time.  The Bible does not claim to give us all of the information on Creation or a host of other subjects, it gives us what it gives us, there may be more, there probably is – a lot more.  I don’t know.  And there lies the conundrum – I don’t know.

I will be forced to wait for my explanation.  I willingly suspend judgment or leave in God’s hands those areas I cannot know.

Do I understand the different climates of the Galapagos Islands?  No!  Does the earth seem very old?  Yes!  Do I possess Megaladon teeth both serrated and non-serrated teeth that would suggest that their teeth “evolved” over a long period of time?  Yes!   Do I understand how Jonah could live for three days inside a whale?  No! 

In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences, in answer to the tensions between science and religion, made this statement in a publication it titled “Science and Creationism”.  “Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."

Adventism believes that they occupy one realm and that they glorify each other and that where one must make a choice which to believe and this is not often but does happen.  When we have to choose which to go with, where to place one’s faith in, we choose the Supernatural.  We do this, having faith that all of the answers may not be apparent to us but that the answers do exist.

But I know that in the world of the Supernatural, things don’t always seem as they appear.  Even though science is ever before me in all its logical wonder, so is the magic of the Supernatural and it has the greater sway over me.  Not that I mistrust science, I don’t.  It is just that I know the One that invented science controls it and I trust Him more.

However, I do have enough to say to a dying world: “Trust the Supernatural, there is hope there.  The logical world, for all I can see, has not delivered on its promises.”

So am I held up to possible ridicule?  Possibly.  But given a choice of trusting my logic, your logic or anyone else’s logic or trusting God, I choose the Supernatural God.  If that is illogical, so be it.

The need for Logic

Recently I received a comment on this blog from Adventist Today Editor J. David Newman, in part he wrote:

“You write well although you and I will never come to any sort of agreement because your logic is beyond me just as my logic is beyond you. It seems that we are speaking two different languages.”

A couple years ago I had an extended dialog with David Newman on the subject of death before sin and he could not fathom anything other then taking the Genesis chapters 1 and 2 as literal method of interpretation. You know the perfect world with talking snakes thing, with trees given names like the “tree of life” and the “tree of knowledge of good and evil”.

His claim was that we were talking past each other, basically what he is saying in the above comment. I would have liked to have posted those conversations but he did not want me to. I think the reason he did not want them posted is not because we were speaking a different language but because we were speaking with different presuppositions and facts. But his facts were mostly beliefs and when you compare beliefs with actual factual information beliefs don't seem so compelling.

Not long ago there was a news program and Rachel Maddow was making a statement about the supposed wage gap between men and women. To this another panelist Alex Castellanos stepped in to explain some of the reasons for wage differences. Her response was: “Wait wait wait, don't tell me the reasons do women make less then men...” If one rejects reasons to focus upon statistics do the statistics really matter anymore? No in fact they become excuses. We see a lot of this type of miscommunication in the world of politics, but it is also just as frequent in the world of religion.

It is most frequent with the fundamentalist mindset that claims that the Bible is the word of God, so if God wrote the story of Genesis through the hand of some person, God was telling the literal, historical and scientifically accurate truth. That presupposition precludes any logical or reasoned variance with their belief. Their belief is not even accurate as the Bible does not claim to be the word of God (click this link for more) in the first place but that does not really matter as their belief is the primary thing. When people refuse to use logic then logic has no effect on them. When people want you to ignore logic then their arguments have no effect on the person who wants to be logical; who wants to have well thought out reasons for their positions. Thus Newman's statement is somewhat true. “...I will never come to any sort of agreement because your logic is beyond me just as my logic is beyond you.” The problem is that we could communicate if he was using logic. That is the reason for the existence of what we call logic. That way people can get together and discuss and work out ideas and effectively communicate.

What appears to be happening in Adventism today is that logic has been cast aside. When we lose that we have nothing. We have no reason to exist and we have no reasonable way to fulfill a mission for God and no way to fulfill that mission because we have lost the key elements to communicate. For Adventism to progress it must begin to think critically once again. (see the following quote on Critical Thinking):

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the following :

• understand the logical connections between ideas
• identify, construct and evaluate arguments
• detect inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning
• solve problems systematically
• identify the relevance and importance of ideas
• reflect on the justification of one's own beliefs and values
  

Has Reason found a place to die?

I am constantly amazed at the positions some Christians make when it comes to science and religion.

For example here is another quote from J. David Newman over on Adventist Today:

I see that discussing uniformitarianism in any depth seems to "fiighten" many of you.  Maybe it is because if we do challenge that concept a lot of things could change.  But let me switch points a litte.  Grossmont College in California has a powerpoint presentation call The Assumptions of Science.  In Four panels they listed the assumptions.  Here are just a few of them.
The world is real.
The real world is knowable and comprehensible.
There are laws that govern the real world.
Those laws are knowable and comprehensible.
Those laws don't [radically] change according to place or time, since the early stages of the big bang.
Nature is understandable.
The rules of logic are valid.
Language is adequate to describe the natural realm
Human senses are reliable.
Mathematical rules are descriptive of the physical world.

However it was panel 5 that caught my attention.
Assumptions are accepted without proof.
They form the basis of all scientific thinking.

This is what I have been trying to say that whether we use the Bible or Science we first have to agree on our assumptions.  And scientific assumptions are accepted by faith not by proof.  And the way we come to those assumptions determines which ones we will accept.   Thus the atheist will come to the subject with a different set of assumptions from what the Christian will have.

Which means we should be open to question the assumptions.

http://disciple21century.com/assumptions-of-science.htm

I looked at the powerpoint presentation and it is pretty accurate. However Newman did not note the footnote at the bottom of the page which reads:

Just to make the point as clear as possible, these assumptions of science, like all such assumptions cannot be demonstrated to be correct as #5 correctly states.

In fact the presentation also addresses the supernatural in slide #8

Limitations of Science

Science can't help us with questions about the supernatural.  The prefix "super" means "above."  So supernatural means "above (or beyond) the natural."  The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach.

So notice what those many assumptions are. The world is real...how do you prove that, perhaps it is just a part of some dream inside some creatures head? The rules of logic are valid...how do you prove that maybe what we think is logical is simply based upon are biological inheritance and we actually have no choice in what we choose? These are the assumptions that the power point slide is addressing, the logical assumptions of life. We can provide all kinds of evidence for most of the things on that list but proof is much more difficult because proof has to be able to defeat any other possible objections to the theory. So science accepts the logic of the evidence but often can't provide the proof.

But why then if Newman read that slide presentation did he assert anything against Uniformatarianism. Wikipedia begins it's article on Uniformatrianism with this:

Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and is functioning at the same rates. Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology, but naturalism's modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism.

Simplified; what we see is reality and the reality is not judged by whatever claims to the supernatural may exist. So Newman thinks he is challenging the concept and science because he asserts supernatural activity. But science is not meant to deal with supernatural events and pleading to supernatural events can not change science in the slightest. It would be like putting science back to the middle ages when spirits caused bad whether or the even more ancient belief that spirits caused diseases. Science comes to its assumptions not on faith but by applying logic to the reality we see. Just because it can't be proven does not make something based simply on faith. That should be true for every Christian as well, we come to faith by the evidence.

I am very concerned for the future of Adventism as long as its adherents persist in their practice of twisted logic. But I have to grant that I can't prove that logic should never be twisted or that logic is the best and only solution to problem solving. But it is the best that we have now, based upon the evidence from the use of logic and the misuse of logic; that is real world application. But they can assert their faith without evidence and the wisdom of abandoning scientific methods...where faith just becomes what anyone wants to believe and therefore any faith is equivalent to any other faith.

It is sad to watch a segment of the Christian religion self destruct. But it appears to me to be what is happening when the traditionalists take over reasoning for the church.

Rationalizing the Bible

Continuing on the related subject of the last two blog articles, Clifford Goldstein's insistence that a theist evolutionist explain to his satisfaction his Biblical suppositions and the next article on the paradigm shift in theology that is coming to Adventism and Christianity. I would like to begin by quoting a comment from the Editor of Adventist Today magazine J. David Newman:

“Now those who have followed my exchanges on various threads know that I believe in a short creation and not one of millions of year. I believe this because of my presupposition that I understand nature through the bible. Others work from the presupposition that they make the bible fit into their understanding of science. My main concern is the issue of why Jesus Christ came to die for us and how sin and death relate to what he saves us from. I have not yet read anyone with an evolutionary veiw point explain how to fit the bible concept of a time without sin and without death into the evolutionary framework.”

There are a couple of notable things in this quote. First the understanding of Nature through the Bible. The Bible is not and has never been about nature, you could argue it is about human nature or maybe even the nature of God or the nature of characters in the stories of the Bible but it is really not even in the slightest bit about nature. Even the agricultural nature statements like early and latter rains are about a specific geographic area's weather. So they are in themselves not even about nature as one very limited version of nature. You don't learn nature from the limited examples, you have to broaden the base of knowledge to come to understand nature.

So the question is why does Newman think to understand nature by the Bible? I imagine he took Biology in high school or college and even if he took the theology students science course their textbook was not the Bible. So what he is really saying is that he has rationalized his understanding so that he can claim it is from the Bible. No Gregor Mendel for him, genetic inheritance is from the Bible, perhaps the story of Jacob and the spotted sheep produce his understanding of inheritance of physical traits. It could be like the article linked to above about Jacob and the spotted sheep which is from some publication that says it is “Science in Christian Perspective” which seems to be more about finding the science behind a miracle and thus validate their religious beliefs. By such reasoning Newman means that he understands nature based upon his assumed Christian positions. Thus the assumed position in recent 6 day creation period, based upon the assumption that the Genesis story was intended as a literal and historical representation of reality.

What is important to notice here is the way a shorthand term is used, “I understand nature through the bible” That is not what he means surely. He means he has certain interpretations he applies to Biblical texts and he rationalizes that such understanding defines his knowledge of nature as well. You can see why the shorthand is used...it really does not sound to clever when you unpack the information in the shorthand verbiage. Let me just define rationalization here so that we are clear:

“to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.”

The first part of the above quote is shown to be a rationalization and we can move on the the more important information and really the reason for this article. Newman says:

“My main concern is the issue of why Jesus Christ came to die for us and how sin and death relate to what he saves us from. I have not yet read anyone with an evolutionary veiw point explain how to fit the bible concept of a time without sin and without death into the evolutionary framework.”

Here I am on my second page of this article in the word processor and I am just getting to the most important part, why not just separate it into a second article. The answer is that though the material and subject matter are different, his presuppositions are the same. That is they are traditional Christian perspectives masquerading as this is what the Bible says, interpretation can only be via traditional views. Shorthand verbiage, “in the Bible”, that's what “the Bible says”, and of course, I am judging nature “by the Bible”; these are often just rationalizations.

But what Jesus' Atonement did is subject to what your presuppositions are. If the point is reconciliation between God and man it does not really matter how the separation first occurred, what matters is that it is the reality we live with. We are not really any better off because we have a story about the first sin on earth whether it was thousands or millions of years ago. What our ancestors may have done at some point in time is not that useful for us. I think my answer to what Jesus did by the atonement will be quite different from Newman's. As for the so called Bible concept of time without sin or death. Well even with the story in Genesis it is preciously short. Again that time that he wants explained is not necessarily what the Bible means, inspiration has the affect that it works upon people differently when they have different facts in front of them.

A good example is the verse where Jesus says:  

John 12:24 I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. (NIV) 

Nature if judged by the Bible requires that seeds die, cease respiration, but science tells us seeds that no longer respire are dead and they don't ever grow again...a farmer can tell you that as well even before they determined how to find out the germination rate using other methods besides actually germinating seeds. Now it may be that at one time the ancients really thought the seed died because it was buried, but we know now that is not the death of the seed. Has the meaning been lost because we now know that the seed did not really die? So is the point of the Genesis story to tell us about a time when death of any kind did not exist. Doubtful, there is nothing in our world that would allow us to conceive of a world with no death. We eat plants they die, we eat fruit the cells die, if bacteria did not die they would reproduce so quickly that they would cover the earth 50 feet deep in a month, if the bacteria didn't do it then the insects would. It simply does not work on any level we know of. Yet you don't see the traditionalist trying to explain the nature of life during that supposed length of sinless time. No they only want you to explain what happens with theistic evolution. God can make everything work in their perfect world of rather limited time in the Genesis but don't expect them to allow God to do anything if God chose to use some form of evolution.

The sad thing about this is that they think they are being so logical and so certain that they are “in the Bible”. But while they maybe in the Bible so can the theistic evolutionist, it is just that they are using different interpretation criteria and facts to arrive at their beliefs. No doubt we are far from figuring it out...Probably both sides, the young earth creationist and the Theistic evolutionist. But the young earth creationist seems to have stopped trying to understand and just begun to defend their interpretations. Thus they don't really grow any longer, they assume they have the truth but what they really have is traditions that are called truth. It stops their growth in practically every area of theology, from origins to the the atonement to inspiration. It is really time to begin to grow again.

The Paradigm Shift in Adventism

There is nothing more uncomfortable then to actually change. To change requires the acknowledgment that what you once thought or did was incorrect in some way. Christian's love to use it in reference to repentance, but they don't ever seem to want to think that it may be something they have to do in their own beliefs and doctrines. Adventist most certainly have a particular paradigm.

The originator of the term paradigm shift wrote of paradigms as:

“...paradigms, including many that are far more specialized than those named illustratively above, is what mainly prepares the student for membership in the particular scientific community with which he will later practice.” (Page 11 from the 3^rd Edition)

 While Kuhn writes in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions about science his philosophy equates well with many other areas of study including Theology. Each denomination builds up their leaders in their paradigm and thus they all work from within that paradigm. As Kuhn concludes the above paragraph by saying:

“Because he there joins men who learned the bases of their field from the same concrete models, his subsequent practice will seldom evoke overt disagreement over fundamentals. Men whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice. That commitment and the apparent consensus it produces are prerequisites for normal science, i. e., for the genesis and continuation of a particular research tradition.”

Most of us are quite aware of how the traditionalists work in religion. They are not out of step with any other area of study. We all begin with a particular set of principles and we try to fit them with reality.

The blog History and Theology summarizes Kuhn this way:

“...In short, Kuhn offers an analysis of how a scientific community accepts, discards and embraces new theories. He argues that a scientific community accepts a theory, which he calls a paradigm, over others, because one paradigm is more successful than the others in solving a few problems that a group believes to be important. However, to this point, he quickly adds that no paradigm is perfect. In fact, it is the imperfections of these paradigms (he actually calls them anomalies) that can lead to paradigm shifts.[2] However, it is important to keep in mind that these changes do not come quickly or easily,[3] but when they occur, Kuhn views them as shifts in worldview.[4] He even more provocatively, at times, calls these changes, conversions. He writes, “The transfer of allegiance from paradigm to paradigm is a conversion experience…”[5] The applicability of Khun’s work is enormous for many different fields of study.”

The above blog then lists some important points for consideration the last being this:

5. All people should look for anomalies in their worldviews and be honest about them.

The anomalies of a paradigm are always the problem and they are also the spur that moves to new views, to the actual paradigm shifts. If you ignore them and teach others to ignore them then the old paradigm works just fine but of course you are not being honest with yourself if you ignore the anomalies. When it comes to creation vs. evolution we often see the anomalies ignored by the paradigm of the creationists and even when the idea of evolution with God's involvement is used the creationist simply ignores the theistic part of the newer view. Thus they ignore the mountains of scientific data and even ignore those who try and reconcile the science with the mystical.

Paradigm shifts are rarely quick and easy transformations. But for those growing up with more open views toward knowledge and less concrete certitude the paradigm shift is already taking place. For example many Christians have no problem accepting the ideas of evolution with their Christianity while others stuck in the previous paradigm cannot fathom how this can be done. You can't explain it to them because it is outside their particular worldview. But that worldview is theirs, it is what their paradigm has set forth and they don't want to change their worldview even if others have changed.

As Kuhn writes on page 67: “Furthermore, in all these cases except that of Newton the awareness of anomaly had lasted so long and penetrated so deep that one can appropriately describe the fields affected by it as in a state of growing crisis. Because it demands large-scale paradigm destruction and major shifts in the problems and techniques of normal science, the emergence of new theories is generally preceded by a period of pronounced professional insecurity. As one might expect that insecurity is generated by the persistent failure of the puzzles of normal science to come out as they should. Failure of existing rules is the prelude to a search for new ones.”

The Adventist church is in this painful process right now. The question is can the church look at the anomalies and be honest with itself or ignore them and maintain a concrete but functionally problematic paradigm. In fact this paradigm shift is far from just about young earth creationism, it is about the nature of atonement, the value of our eschatology and the authority of some of our traditional ancestors as well as the meaning and purpose of inspiration. Thus the problems have mounted and the tendency to ignore has lasted a long time. So if Kuhn is correct and he certainly seems to have a good grasp of the issues, then the Adventist church is due for a paradigm shift. But as Kuhn says the next paradigm will likely have its own problems. Unfortunately there is no giant leap to all the answers. But that seems to be the way that progress works, slow steps forward in understanding with new understanding bringing forth new anomalies.

Redefining Theology, Goldstein and Genesis

There was an interesting comment over on the Spectrum Magazine blog concerning Clifford Goldstein's March 2012 article in the Adventist Review, the subject of my previous article. In the comment section one atheist/former (you have to know his history of comments to know this fact it is not present in this comment) Adventist writes:

“All of you seem to have skipped Cliff's challenge: "For years I’ve been asking someone to give me a reinterpretation of the texts, based on the Darwinian worldview, that doesn’t undermine almost everything we believe: the trustworthiness of the Bible, the origin of sin and death, the character of God, and the meaning of the cross."

In the interest of not repeating the same old arguments and posts we've seen so many times before, why not seriously address his point. Cliff's argument is not with science per se; his point is that he is not willing, under any circumstance, to give up on the Christian gospel. If evolution allowed him to keep his faith intact, he would be happy to acknowledge the science behind it, if I read him correctly. The reason I think he is so angry at you is that he believes that you're eroding the ground upon which Christianity is built.”

I think this raises an important observation, Goldstein has not seen anyone produce a theistic evolutionary response that leaves in tact all of Goldstein's theological assumptions. No one really tries to answer Goldstein because it can't be done and contain all of Goldstein's assumptions that make what Goldstein considers the gospel. In brief what does his view of the trustworthiness of the Bible mean. Well he means that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are literal and historically accurate. Something no theistic evolutionary accepting Christian would accept. So to Goldstein to deny the literalness denies the trustworthiness of the Bible. But for those of us who accept theistic evolution trustworthiness is not based upon literalness.

The origin of sin and death is not really the topic of the first chapters of Genesis. Sin is not even mentioned until the story of Cain and Abel. Death is mentioned as a consequence of actions. Because of Adam and Eve's actions the tree of life is removed from their access. The story is hardly about the origin of sin and death, even Adventists seem to acknowledge that sin originated with Satan and Satan is not even mentioned in the Genesis story. He is a later addition to Jewish thought and then attributed to be the serpent of old in the book of Revelation. So even to the Adventist the subject is not the origin of sin.

What Goldstein means by the character of God I don't know, I would guess from his article he is thinking; how can God create through a system of death where animals and plants grow change and die and evolve. Apparently it is OK for God to make animals become predators upon others and virus and plants to attack and kill a host because God is upset by human sin. But he has to draw the line somewhere and he choses the evolution of nature to be somehow contrary to the character of God. Personally I don't see any problem with death before Adam and Eve, the assumption that it is not involved in the Genesis story seems wrong to me as the people in the story eat. So they are destroying cellular material and that is death. This is not a real problem unless you take the perfect world idea to it's logical conclusion, bacteria would grow and exponential rates and cover the earth in less then a week (maybe even 24 hours) if there was no death. The story is not trying to tell us there was no death, that is something people like to read into the story. Goldstein's assumptions are part of the things read into the story and he wants them maintained when they should be let go.

Last is his meaning of the cross. Goldstein is a forensic atonement person. I don't accept the substitutionary atonement, so I really would not find my meaning of the cross to be the same as Goldstein. In fact I think the substitutionary atonement theory speaks terribly about the character of God.

So can anyone do what Goldstein wants done? No, because what he wants is to find his beliefs encompassed with a totally different understanding of theology. His view is traditional but that hardly makes it correct. Traditions come and go, they are constantly adjusted and changed and just because they are traditional does not prevent their evolution. But that is what Goldstein wants; his tradition to be maintained, if not he can't accept anything else. But that really does not leave him in the position of authority in rejecting other views. It only means he won't look at anything other then the way he sees things.

The atheist commenter on Spectrum wants us to admit that the idea of evolution destroys the gospel. It does not, it destroys the fundamentalist or the traditionalists gospel. But is that really a bad thing?

Adventist Review publishes smear terms.

I may have been too hard on the editors of Liberty Magazine and Adventist Today online. It could be that Adventists are simply incapable of being sensible editors of any publication. Consider this from the March 15 2012 Adventist Review:

No question, Genesis 1 and 2 present challenges. Bible students have been trying to work their way through the Creation account for thousands of years. The issue isn’t that the texts aren’t without difficulties; everyone knows that they are. The issue is the “solution” Seventh-day Darwinians want to impose upon them.

So who are the Seventh-day Darwinians? Is there a definition in the article by Clifford Goldstein? No, no definition. Can we find it in the dictionary or Wikipedia. Not listed there either. Maybe there is an organization called “seventh-day Darwinians” Again no.

But we can search the internet and see that the Adventist Review and Clifford Goldstein has published articles using the term before. In 2003 Goldstein wrote an article entitled Seventh-day Darwinians. No definition there either, in fact the title is the only mention in the article of Seventh-day Darwinians. Then Again in the Adventist Review again in an article by Clifford Goldstein we read another article entitled Seventh-Day Darwinians,Redux. Again I suppose that is what the Redux means, the term Seventh-Day Darwinians is only found in the title of the article, again no definition, no reference to the group known as Seventh-day Darwinians, it appears to be some kind of smear or code language. 

Should the editors be publishing articles with terms that have no definition? Or should opponents of an idea be free to title someone of a different view as with prejudicial terms. For instance should I refer to Goldstein’s articles as information geared toward Seventh-day Totalitarians? 

It is rather sad that in Adventism Darwinian has this biased negative view put forth by people like Goldstein. Darwinism actually has a dictionary definition. And it is perfectly acceptable within the bounds of Christian theology as well as science.

Dictionary.com defines Darwinism as:

the Darwinian theory that species originate by descent, with variation, from parent forms, through the natural selection of those individuals best adapted for the reproductive success of their kind.

 

Or the American Heritage Science Dictionary as:

A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Darwin's ideas have been refined and modified by subsequent researchers, but his theories still form the foundation of the scientific understanding of the evolution of life. Darwinism is often contrasted with another theory of biological evolution called Lamarckism,  based on the now-discredited ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.  See Note at evolution.

The acceptance of natural selection is pretty universal among biologists, not just atheist but also Christians, numerous examples of this type of natural selection have been produced. In fact I know of one Adventist who wrote book on Dinosaurs (though not a scientifically viable opinion on dinosaurs) who uses natural selection (Darwinism) to explain the immense diversity of animal life which he asserted to occur after the world wide flood since clearly that many animals would not fit on the ark of such recorded dimensions. He is a supporter of the six literal, consecutive, contiguous, 24-hour days of recent origin creation theory as well. Would a belief in natural selection actually place him in the Seventh-day Darwinian label? I suppose it depends upon who you ask and why do you think you should even respect their answer or ability to define a term that has no definition.

So who is more foolish the writer that uses a prejudicial but meaningless term or the editor that just passes on the prejudicial but meaningless term? They seem to both be doing it multiple times, so it is difficult to say. Perhaps they are equal in their prejudice and poor reasoning capabilities. It seems The Adventist Review editors simply pass on the biases that they agree with. When editors can’t be objective then they fail at their jobs and they fail to maintain a standard of trust of the magazine. This seems to be a theme in Adventism today.