Understanding Genesis

 by Nic Samojluk

 

Adventist Today published a book entitled Understanding Genesis in 2007 containig material dealing with origins previously written by the following authors: Richard Rice, Brian S. Bull, Dalton D. Baldwin, Ivan T. Blazen, Fritz Guy, Richard Bottomley, Douglas R. Clark, Ervin Taylor, Warren H. Johns, and Lawrence T. Geraty. The editors of the same magazine asked Dr. Sean Pitman to write a book review of said book. This generated comments from other individuals, which in turn prompted Pitman to respond to those comments and questions.

I thought that the readers of this forum might be interested in reading said exchange of electronic communication, since Pitman has delved into this topic with an unusual intensity and devotion over the years. It represents a favorite hobby for him, and his knowledge of the subject is quite remarkable. You can access Pitman's book review by securing a copy of the  November/December issue of Adventist Today, or else read the original, unedited copy sent by Pitman, which I have posted below. [The margins of the book review were slightly chopped as a result of transferring the material to this forum. If you find it hard to read, try the following link: http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html#NOVA] The E-mail exchange between Pitman and others, including a few comments of my own follow the book review:

 Book Review. Understanding Genesis: Contemporary Adventist Perspectives

Edited by Brian Bull, Fritz Guy & Ervin Taylor

Published by Adventist Today, Adventist Today Foundation, © 2006

www.atoday.org

Sean D. Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com

  For those Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) who have not already read this book, consider doing so.  It is an eye opening experience.  Not so much because of the arguments made (briefly discussed below), but because of those who make the arguments. 

 Over the past several years, the SDA Church has organized several Faith and Science Conferences to internally discuss the topic of origins and review the SDA Church's official position on the first few chapters of the Genesis account (Glacier View, Colorado and Ogden, Utah).  The problem, of course, is that the SDA Church has historically supported a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of a seven-day creation week and a universal worldwide flood.  This interpretation is even listed as part of the Church's stated set of "fundamental" beliefs (Belief #6) as follows: 

God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made "the heavens and the earth" and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was "very good,'' declaring the glory of God. (Gen. 1; 2; Ex. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Heb. 11:3.) Of course, this statement has come under heavy fire and has been extensively discussed in the various Faith and Science Conferences over the past several years. Finally, on September 10, 2004, the General Conference (GC) restated the official position of the SDA Church to include the following specific affirmations and recommendations (among others): 

1.      We affirm the historic Seventh-day Adventist understanding of Genesis 1 that life on earth was created in six literal days and is of recent origin.

2.      We affirm the biblical account of the Fall resulting in death and evil.

3.      We affirm the biblical account of a catastrophic Flood, an act of God's judgment that affected the whole planet, as an important key to understanding earth history.

4.      In order to address what some interpret as a lack of clarity in Fundamental Belief #6 the historic Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the Genesis narrative be affirmed more explicitly.

5.      Church leaders at all levels be encouraged to assess and monitor the effectiveness with which denominational systems and programs succeed in preparing young people, including those attending non-Adventist schools, with a biblical understanding of origins and an awareness of the challenges they may face in respect to this understanding. 

Given these specific affirmations of a fundamental position and key recommendations concerning this particular issue, it is very interesting to read what self-styled "contemporary Adventists" have to say in Understanding Genesis: Contemporary Adventist Perspectives.  The authors contributing to this book are no ordinary members of the SDA Church. Many of them hold or held high positions of responsibility in the Church, including heads of academic departments within our school systems, hospitals, communities and churches.  One author in particular, Lawrence Geraty, has recently retired as president of La Sierra University.  So, what do these prominent members of our Church have to say about the SDA Church's stated fundamental position on origins?

These men argue strongly against the notions of both a literal seven-day creation week in recent history as well as the notion of a literal worldwide Noachian flood. Many argue that the Church's position is simply not tenable in this age of science and reason; that the significant majority of SDA scientists and even many SDA theologians simply do not believe and cannot honestly support much less teach the Church's stated position on this issue. 

This is quite a serious challenge on the part of very prominent individuals within the SDA Church. Their book attempts to directly undermine something the Church, as an organized body, holds very dear, even "fundamental". While it is good and even necessary to have a way to present tough questions like these in internal forums within an organization, some methods of challenging the fundamentals of an organization are quite damaging and should not be tolerated.  Is it really honest to continue to carry the name of, and sometimes receive financial support from, any organization while striving, in a very public way, to undermine the stated foundations of that organization? Why not just go and work for Reebok instead of posing as a Nike employee? Like it or not, the SDA Church, like any viable organization, has a product to sell - a certain fairly specific interpretation of the Bible that is thought to be valuable.  Why would anyone who does not honestly believe in that product wish to carry the title of SDA? 

Perhaps these men are actually right and the SDA Church is wrong?  What then? Personally, if I ever became convinced that there really is no scientific merit behind the literal seven-day creation week or the worldwide nature of Noah's flood, or if Darwinian-style evolution one day made good sense to me, I would leave behind not only the SDA Church but Christianity as well. I may still believe in God, just not the Christian God. Does that make my faith fragile?  What good are one's notions of any kind of "truth" if that truth is not subject to challenge or potential falsification?

Unlike the authors, I see no possibility of rationally linking Christianity, much less the specific SDA take on Christianity, with Darwinian-style evolution. Other forms of religion, such as Hinduism, are much more compatible with evolution than is Christianity.  The Christian view of God presents God as a being who is actually concerned and grieved when a little sparrow falls wounded to the ground. Yet, early in this book Richard Rice attempts to counter by arguing that animals really don't suffer when they experience pain; that there is a difference between suffering and pain and that pain without suffering really isn't all that bad - even good.  He argues that animals may experience pain, but only humans can experience true suffering.  Really?!  Why then should God be concerned at all for the pain suffered by animals be it a single sparrow or billions of sentient beings over millions of years?  Why then should we be concerned?  The Bible points out that, "The whole of creation groans and travails in pain together until now" (Romans 8:22). 

-

We are told that this condition is abnormal in God's universe. That it is the direct result of human sin affecting this planet. Evolution requires survival of the fittest - disease, suffering, pain and death of sentient beings.  Would anyone call this situation "good"?  Why make a New Heaven and a New Earth if such pain, predation, and death really "make important contributions to our lives [for which we should be] grateful"?! (pp. 11)  Why do away with death, suffering, and pain when it is so beneficial to intelligent sentient beings? We aren't talking about bacteria or orange peels here or some little prick on the finger. Sure, predation, as Rice explains it, may be a necessary evil in a sinful place, but is it really ideal? 

I, for one, would not like to live forever in such an "ideal" place. Just because we may ultimately gain something from this current experience of sin and its resultant life of pain, suffering and death, it does not mean that this experience was ever in God's original ideal plan. Bringing something good out of a bad situation doesn't mean the bad wasn't really all that bad.  The whole point of this sin "demonstration" is to show that it really is very bad indeed; that it should never be tried again because of what it does to both the guilty and the innocent - like the wounded sparrow. 

Although several challenging points are raised, most of the arguments in the book are beyond me. Several authors try to separate science from religion. Brian Bull, a very intelligent man and scientist himself, argues that "pure science" only deals with empirical observations without making any value judgments whatsoever - unlike religion. As much as I respect Dr. Bull, I cannot for the life of me think of any useful purely empirical observations that are entirely independent of interpretation or value judgments. The very basis of science includes the ability to establish predictive value; which involves making value judgments.

Later on, along with Fritz Guy, Brian Bull argues that the Biblical authors had no real concept of science or natural law - that the automatic "default" for everything, good or bad, was seen by the Biblical writers as resulting from God's direct "miraculous" will and action without any sense of natural law or chance events outside of God as a direct cause.  The problem here is that many Biblical writers describe various tests to rule out "natural" or "chance" events.  Consider, for example, the interesting account of the Philistines sending the Ark of God back to Israel by ox cart.  If the oxen went to Bethel, it was clearly divine intervention and not "chance" because the oxen would "naturally" tend to remain with their newly born calves.  The same is true of the experiment set up by Elijah on Mt. Carmel to judge between true and false Gods by the one who "answers with fire."  Or, consider Gideon's fleece experiment . . . etc.

Dalton Baldwin argues that the Bible is confusing when it describes creation as happening during a literal week while also describing God as constantly creating over time - as in the notion of God individually creating us in our mother's wombs.  Is the concept of original as well as ongoing creation or sustenance really that confusing? I fail to see the problem. However, Dalton may have something with his next point. He suggests that if the sun, moon and stars where not originally created in the sequence listed, and I personally agree that they were probably formed before creation week, then the entire creation week must be purely symbolic. I know this is a significant problem for many, but this apparent problem is nicely resolved if one considers that a very literal creation account is given by the prophet as he was shown what took place during that first week from an Earth-bound perspective.

Ivan Blazen, whom I deeply respect and admire as a brilliant theologian and Christian counselor, argues that Genesis 1 is neither scientific nor unscientific, but non-scientific; having other "transcendent interests" beyond the realm of science.  The problem here is that without the potential of physical testability and falsifiably, no transcendent notion of "truth" (like God and his Nature) has any validity over any other potential theory of God's existence or action. Yet, Blazen concludes that, "God sustains the world against the powers of chaos." - -  based on what? Even Christ referred to his miracles and to fulfilled prophecy as evidence for his metaphysical claims.

 But what about the logical problems and physical facts that clearly counter the SDA interpretation of Genesis?  What about Warren Johns' argument that, according to the Bible, only domesticated animals where taken on Noah's ark? - that the wild air-breathing land animals (like lions) survived because the flood was a local flood?  Several other authors also argue in this book for the notion of a local flood.  The problem is that the internal logic of the flood story breaks down given the truth of a local flood.  Why the need to build an ark and save animals if the flood is going to be local? Why not just move elsewhere?  Also, did all the bad people happen to live in the same valley to be destroyed by a local flood? 

Johns also misinterprets the words for various kinds of animals described in the Genesis account.  Johns argues that, "of the large mammals, only the domestic varieties (behemah) were on the ark" and that the original Hebrew, with its emphasis on the behemah is evidence that other types of land animals were not included.  He argues that the Hebrew word, "behemah" refers to domestic animals or grazing hoofed animals and that the Hebrew word "chayyah" refers particularly to carnivores.  The main problem with this argument is that the author of the Genesis account uses both words to describe animals that were on the ark.      All the animals (chay) and all the creatures that move along (remes) the ground and all the birds – everything that moves on the earth – came out of the ark, one kind after another.  Then Noah built an alter to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals (behemah) and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. (Gen 8:19,20).   

But what about Ervin Taylor's argument that the theory of evolution did not affect or bias the theory of long ages being represented by the geologic layers and fossil record? Regardless of motive, the theory of evolution is generally understood to be dependent upon vast spans of time; that evolutionary mechanisms could not produce the vast array high-level biosystem complexity that we see today in just a few thousand years. What most scientists do not seem to realize is that even if trillions of years were available, it wouldn't be nearly enough time to overcome the statistical problems with the proposed evolutionary mechanism of random mutation and natural selection.

Now I'm sure most scientists are quite honest and sincere in their studies and interpretations and are not consciously biasing their interpretations to preferentially favor the theory of evolution.  However, don't tell me there isn't any serious bias, even if unconscious, within the scientific community. All one has to do is read the story of J Harlen Bretz and his Scabland flood theory to understand that the scientific community is, generally speaking, no more immune to bias than a community of ardent, church-going, sectarian fundamentalists.

Oh, but what about Richard Bottomley's and Ervin Taylor's arguments of very reliable dating methods that all seem to agree with each other so perfectly?  A little healthy skepticism goes a long way in this regard.  Many of the dating methods discussed are calibrated against each other.  Various patterns are even manipulated and refined by a process known as "tuning" in order to match a predetermined pattern. I've done a little bit of reading into the technical aspects and underlying assumptions behind several of these dating methods. So far, the more I read about them, the less solid they appear. Perhaps I'm blinded by my own bias here?  Perhaps.  But, I honestly want to know and am looking for the truth; wherever it may lead me.

Now, it does seem to me that the material of the Earth and of the universe as a whole may be very old indeed. However, as far as I've been able to tell so far, there is a great deal of physical evidence to suggest that life on Earth and the formation almost all of the sedimentary layers of the geologic record were formed recently and rapidly.

So what?  What does it matter?  Why does the governing body of the SDA Church consider its stated position on the interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis so "fundamental"?  Well, as I understand it, the traditional SDA view, if one sees the evidence for it, is a much more hopeful position than that espoused by the contemporary Adventist authors of this book review.  Their view, if true, removes much of the solid basis behind the hope of the Gospel's "good news".  I mean really, Ervin Taylor recently admitted, upon the Loma Linda University Church platform before a large public audience, that he wouldn't know what to tell his own granddaughter if she asked him for evidence of God's existence. Now, although admirably honest, that's a rather sad statement coming from any Adventist much less the executive editor of the "progressive" journal Adventist Today.

So, how do we really know what God is like or even if he exists at all if little in the Bible really happened as described?  Sure, the creation story, the story of Adam and Eve in a perfect garden paradise, story of Noah's flood, Jonah and the whale, or the virgin birth are all nice stories. Even as fables they may present some important truths no doubt.  But, they say a whole lot more if they are really true.  I think children have an edge here.  Why else do children always ask, "Did that really happen?" whenever they hear some tall tale?  Is Genesis just an interesting tall tale?  Or did it really happen?  How about life after death? Is heaven real, or just a tall tale?  Does it matter?  

-

Sean Pitman Responds to Jack Hoehn

Another Exchange of E-mails

Between Hoehn & Pitman

Donna Carlson Questions San Pitman

Pitman Responds to Donna

Comments from Patti Hare

The review of Understanding Genesis is a prime example of keep-God-in-the-box thinking. I found the book exciting and mind-stretching. Ivan Blazen explains in his chapter on Genesis 1 that Moses was writing first to the children of Israel, who had been in slavery surrounded by many gods and polytheistic neighbor nations for longer than our country has existed. He was seeking to teach them that there is One God, the God who made the heavens, earth, sea and all that in them is, gave them the gift of the Sabbath, and chose them for His special people. What an insight! It makes such good sense.

The Bible does not answer the "when" questions: When was Satan cast out of Heaven? How much time elapsed before the planet was "furnished" (See Gen. 1:1 in the Septuagint) for the new order of being God was planning to create? Perhaps we need to reread Job 38 and 39 to put our questions and doubts in perspective. It seems reasonable to me that God had been creating his vast Universe from eternity past. Fortunately the Bible is very clear that we are created in God's image, we are His children, and He wants us to walk with Him and to know Him intimately. What an awesome God to care so much about this speck in His vast Universe! It is also clear that we are sinners in need of a Saviour, and that the risen Christ is that Saviour who is coming back for us. The Bible is abundantly clear for its purpose. Let's not try to make it say more than it does.

I found nothing in the book that shook my faith in the Gospel or the Sabbath. We seem to forget that God has two books (see EGW, Education, p. 128) that "shed light upon each other." The church had to finally accept the light that His book of nature shed when scientists discovered our planet is not flat nor is it the center of the Universe, but not before much struggle and some had been burned at the stake for their belief. We are to be thinkers and open to what new insights and light God gives us. Yes, we do have to be like the Bereans and compare it with Scripture, but not with our preconceived ideas of what we think the Bible writers were saying. Realizing that they wrote at a time when we thought the Earth was flat, held up by pillars (Ps 75:3), covered with a tent or canopy (Ps 104:2) is helpful.

Understanding Genesis may be a stumbling block to some, but to others it is giving hope and keeping them from giving up on the church. Thank you, AT, for publishing it.

-

Patti Hare

-

Daytona Beach Shores, FL

-

---

Pitman Responds

Hi Patty,

I agree with much of what you said - especially with your comments on God and how he wants to interact with us and give us hope.  I also agree that the universe, other created worlds, and the material of the Earth are likely very old indeed - even many millions or billions of years old.  However, it also seems quite clear to me that both the Bible and Nature strongly indicate that life on this planet is of resent origin and that it was created rapidly - i.e., within 6 literal days according to several very specific passages in the Bible in different books.

My question for you is, how do you know that anything in the Bible is in fact "true".  How do you know that these metaphysical claims you reference from the Bible are correct? - that there even exists a God at all much less a kind and loving God? 

-

Sure, there are a lot of questions the Bible doesn't answer when it comes to times and dates.  However, there are some that it does appear to answer quite directly in several places in language that is unambiguous.  One of these is the repeated declaration that God formed this planet from its original chaotic condition and put life on it in seven days each made up of an evening and a morning.  It is very difficult to get more specific than that.  Even those who have been slaves for hundreds of years can understand that - - and they could also have understood if it God had in fact used vast periods of time to create.  These aren't inherently difficult concepts to grasp. Beyond this, the Sabbath was not made for the Israelites alone, but for all mankind from Creation Week.

-

Also, how can you reference Ellen White as an authority here when she says very directly that the Sabbath is representative of a very literal creation week?  In fact, one of the titles to a chapter in her book, Patriarchs and Prophets, is entitled, "The Literal Week".  Ellen White also stated that she was shown in vision that creation week consisted of seven literal days ( The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, p. 85). She also said that the world since that week "is now only about six thousand years old" (Ibid., p. 87).

It seems then just a bit difficult to quote Ellen White in support of a position that goes so counter to very direct statements in this regard - especially for someone who claims the title of SDA.  Both Ellen White and the Bible are indeed abundantly clear for their purposes. Let's also try not to make them say less than they do or be completely removed from potential falsification from all sides until they are no more helpful than a collection of moral fables.

Anyway, I do thank you for expressing your views.  

Sincerely, 

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com 

---

A Few Comments of my Own

More Comments from Hare & Pitman

The Hawaiian island stationary

mantle plume theory

The most powerful witness

for the Gospel

If Doctrines are Wrong,

the Church is Wrong!

Doctrine without love

is Phariseeism

I am not an expert on amino acid dating!

Sorry to hear that!

Calibrated against carbon-14?

"Please do point out my error regarding

amino acid dating!"

Dear Erv,

It seems to me that there is a big difference between being recognized as a friend to a community and holding the same ideals as that community and/or actually representing those ideals as a paid representative. 

Some of my very best friends are agnostics or outright atheists.  We still have a community of good friendship.  This does not mean that they are included under the banner of what it means to be an Seventh-day Adventist.  I like them. They like me. We hang out and do lots of stuff together and have a lot of fun.  That doesn't make them Adventist or me agnostic.  They simply do not share the same belief system that I share and I don't share their belief system.  That doesn't in and of itself make me or them good or bad, right or wrong.  The difference is that we don't claim to be part of the other's faith community while going around publicly promoting just the opposite.

Of course, we've been over this a dozen times before and you've repeatedly recommended Richard Rice's views to me.  I've read Rice's books and I've attended his lectures where he has discussed many of his views in this regard.  I think he is mistaken. Honest and sincere, but mistaken.  He's in good company, and so are you.

As far as amino acid dating, I'm very interested to hear your explanation, or the explanation of anyone else (especially and expert like Patti seems to be) on how, exactly, amino acid dating represents a truly independent dating method free of the need for calibration with other dating methods, such as radiocarbon dating?  I remember asking you in your lecture about this and I for one don't recall you providing any such answer.  Perhaps my memory is faulty here?  Please do point me in the right direction. Remember, I'm not the one claiming to be an expert in amino acid dating here.  If my understanding is way off base, please do point out my error(s). 

As always, thanks for your thoughts. I also respect your forthright approach to these issues.

Sincerely yours,

Sean

---

Taylor challenged to Respond Regarding Calibration

of Amino Acid Dating

 

For those interested, I have been challenged in recent conversations with Patti Hare concerning the nature of amino acid racemization dating (AAR).  It had seemed to me that AAR is dependent upon calibration with other dating techniques, such as radiocarbon dating.  In other words, AAR is not an independent dating method, but must first be calibrated before it can be used. Patti responded by saying that AAR was in fact an independent dating method.  However, she later noted that although her husband was an expert in the field, she herself is not and therefore did not feel able to adequately answer statements in literature which apparently do indicate the need for AAR calibration. 

-

She refered me to Erv Tayler who responded by saying, "Your comment seems to me to constitute an outstanding illustration of the truth of the line that "a little learning (in this case, a little reading) can be dangerous (in this case, to your credibility)."  But, Erv also added, "I will refrain from commenting in any detail concerning your characterization of amino acid geochronology as being 'calibrated against carbon-14.'"

-

How is it that Erv can challenge one's reading comprehension and credibility and yet refrain from providing any explanation or reference that may help to correct the error?  I find this most frustrating since it seems to me that Erv himself has pointed out the need for AAR calibration with radiocarbon dating techniques.  I mean, call me crazy, but I would really appreciate it if someone would read through the following passages and explain to me where my reading comprehension went awry: 

-

____________________

• "D/L aspartic acid ratios cannot be converted into an age estimate unless a suitable known age reference sample is available for calibration of the aspartic acid racemization rate, e.g., kasp value (Bada 1985; Bada et al. 1979).  In the case of the California paleoindian skeletons, the original racemization ages were derived using the Laguna skeleton dated by conventional radiocarbon method (Beta-counting) . . . "
  • Jeffrey L. Bada, Aspartic Acid Racemization Ages of California Paleoindian Skeletons, American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Jul., 1985), pp. 645-647. ( Link)

• Amino-acid ratios can be used for either relative or absolute dating. Absolute dating requires calibration with radiometric techniques, such as radiocarbon dates, and knowledge of the temperature history of the fossil. Once such information is established for a region, amino-acid dating may be used with confidence. However, amino-acid time calibration cannot be extended beyond the area of study due to regional differences in temperature history.
  • http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec10/lec10.htm

• In those articles I show that after 'calibrating' the amino acid racemisation reactions using a radiocarbon dated bone, it is then possible to date other bones from the same site, which are either too old or too small for radiocarbon dating. The only assumption in this approach is that the average temperature experienced by the calibration sample is representative of the average temperature experienced by the other sample. Ages thus deduced are in good agreement with radiocarbon ages determined on the same samples.
  • http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v252/n5482/abs/252379a0.html

• Carroll uses amino acids with C-14 dating to come up with a calibration curve.
  • http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/11/001129075004.htm

•      To overcome the problem of inherent uncertainty in the temperature history of sub-fossil bone Bada and colleagues (Bada and Protsch 1973; Bada et al. 1974) developed a .calibration" method for dating bones using aspartic acid racemization. A bone from a site was chosen as a .calibration" sample and both a radiocarbon date and a D/L aspartic acid ratio were determined. These values were substituted into equation ( 2.4) on page 15 and it was solved for k. The result was an in situ kasp value for the site. After substituting in this k asp value equation (2.4) on page 15 was used to determine the age of other samples from the site for which only D/L aspartic acid values had been determined. The major assumption required with this approach is that the average temperature experienced by the .calibration" sample is representative of the average temperature experienced by other samples from the deposit.     
• More recently researchers have developed calibration curves using a number of age estimations by independent dating methods (e. g. radiocarbon) and considerable effort has gone into transforming data in various ways to achieve linearity in the relationship between D/L ratio and age. Goodfriend et al., (1992) used a cubic transformation of D/L data for aspartic acid to achieve linearity. Later, power function transformations were used for D/L ratios in both mollusc and ostrich shells (Goodfriend and Hare 1995; Goodfriend 1996). Such transformations allow a strong correlation with time but do not explain the observed kinetics.

• • http://www.detectingdesign.com/PDF%20Files/amino%20acid%20racemization%20dating.pdf 

• By determination of the amount of racemization of aspartic acid in bones from a particular location which have been dated by the radiocarbon technique, it is possible to calculate the in situ first-order rate constant for interconversion of the L- and D enantiomers of aspartic acid. Once this "calibration" has been calculated, the reaction can be used to date other bones from the deposit that are either too old to be dated by radiocarbon or that are too small for radiocarbon dating. The only assump tion required with this approach is that the average temperature experienced by the "calibration" sample is representative of the average temperature experienced by older samples.

•  
  • http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/70/5/1331.pdf?ck=nck

•  This study explores time-averaging (temporal mixing) at very high sampling resolution: that of adjacent shells collected from the same stratum. Nine samples of the bivalve Chione fluctifraga were collected from four Holocene cheniers (beach ridges) on the Colorado Delta (Gulf of California) and 165 shells were dated using radiocarbon-calibrated amino-acid racemization (D-alloisoleucine/L-isoleucine).
  • http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ceam/kowabstta.html

---

Acid Racemization Dependent on Carbon 14

There is a book by a vertebrate paleontologist on dating methods pertinent to vertebrate paleontologists.  It says little about amino acid racemization, but simply dismisses it with the comment that it is of little value to vertebrate paleontology because of its heavy dependence on calibration by carbon 14.

Leonard Brand

---

A Question Regarding Nathan Sutter

Dear Dr. Pitman,

I am a fellow Seventh-day Adventist and was made aware of the work that you are doing by Dr. Samuel Pipim.  The reason that I am contacting you is because I was wondering if you have any information concerning Nathan B. Sutter.  He is a Seventh-day Adventist scientist who just had an article published in the journal Science.  I am just curious to know if you anything of him, and if so if you know if he is solid--believes in a six day creation, etc.?  What I find online is vague, but he is identified as Adventist, although an NPR story I listened to said something about evolution.  If you have any information on him, I would greatly appreciate it.  I am a part of an Adventist group who is considering him to come as a speaker, but we want to make sure he is a solid Adventist.

Thank you so much,
Amy Sheppard
-
Amy Lee Sheppard
amylshep@gmail.com

"We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history" Life Sketches, p. 196.

www.greatlakesyouth.org
www.campushope.com
www.gycweb.org

---

Nathan Sutter More Liberal

than Sean Pitman

Dear Amy,

Nathan Sutter just so happens to be my second cousin. And, we actually see each other on rare occasions at family reunions. 

As far as his religious background and beliefs, he did grow up SDA and still thinks of himself as an SDA.  He strongly believes in God and the ministry of Jesus for our salvation.  He is also a very good scientists with a brilliant, and I mean brilliant, mind.  He is also a really nice and engaging down-to-earth sort of guy. However, he does have a more liberal background than I have.  His views on creation and the theory of evolution in particular are probably similar to his boss, world-renown sequencer of the human genome Francis S. Collins. 

Collins is also a Christian, but still believes in some form of Darwinian-style evolution acting over the course of hundreds of millions of years.  Although Nate doesn't come right out and say so, I would guess that he probably also leans in this direction in his own views.  He certainly does not think the topic of origins is as fundamental to the SDA take on Christianity as I do. I, of course, take a very fundamental SDA view of the origin of life on this planet - i.e., a literal creation week of all life on this planet in recent history.

To listen to an interview with Nathan and his own views of his own Christianity and other related issues, see the following Link .
 

All the best with your efforts. Hi:

Sean
www.DetectingDesign.com

---

Will Taylor Respond to

Pitman's challenge?

Sean:

I wonder whether Erv will respond to your challenge. If he doesn't, then his credibility might be in question. This is getting rather interesting, since carbon dating is his field! If he responds, I am interested in reading what he says. I have posted your challenge on the forum.

God bless!

Nic Samojluk
909-796-4760
SDA Forum Editor
www.sdaforum.com
Flamingo Real Estate Broker
www.flamingorealestate.com

---

"Taylor Knows I'm Right!"

Hey Nic,

I'd be surprised if Erv responds - - because he knows I'm right. 

---

Taylor Asks for Date of Publication

Sean:

It would be very helpful if Dr. Brand would provide a reference to this book, particularly the date of its publication.  That might prove illuminating.

Erv

---

Additional Evidence of AAR Calibration

Against Carbon 14

Hey Erv,

What "date" do you need for the reference to be properly "illuminating"?  How about the following published in 2005?

     "Two approaches to calibrating 14C and AAR are used. Interval calibration involves multiple AAR analyses (>10) of Mulinia from previously 14C dated core intervals. Both linear and non-linear regressions of D/L Asp against 14C age yield comparable R-squared values (0.91), but the intercept value has not yet been determined by analysis of modern samples. Direct calibration, currently in progress for 8 samples, involves both AAR and 14C analysis of separate valves from articulated Mulinia individuals. Because direct calibration results are not influenced by time-averaging, they should provide insights into the reliability of the interval calibration.

     Use of AAR data to assess time-averaging not only requires a calibration curve but also an understanding of all factors that cause a spread in D/L values for a given core interval. For intervals with >10 analyses, the coefficient of variation (CV) for D/L Asp is between 3 and 10%, with only two intervals having CV's >7%. These ranges may be interpreted as "normal scatter" around an analytical mid-point, with all samples being essentially the same age, however, time-averaging (as represented by larger CV's) seems most pronounced within a region of slow or interrupted deposition at ~1150 cm core depth, between 2800 and 5600 cal yrs BP." [emphasis added] ( Link)

•  
  • EDWARDS, A. L. ¹ , WEHMILLER, J.¹, LOCKWOOD, R.², KAUFMAN, D.³, BRIGHT, J. ³, CRONIN, T.⁴, and WILLARD, D.⁴, HOLOCENE AMINOCHRONOLOGY AND TIME-AVERAGING FOR CHESAPEAKE BAY MULINIA, 2005 Salt Lake City Annual Meeting (October 16–19, 2005)
    

Or what about the following published in 2001?   

     "Before using AAR ratios in fossils for dating, several tests need to be completed to ensure that the racemization reaction meets the criteria for the first order linear reversible or parabolic kenetics needed for dating (Fig. 4). The two pronged approach using both modern kinetic studies and calibrated tests on fossils applied to develop AAR dating for ostrich egg shells is an excellent example. 

     In high temperature kinetic experiments, the fossil species to be dated is heated at several different temperatures for various times. After using the Arrhenius equations (Eq 6) to determine a rate constant for each temperature tested ( e.g., Fig. 10a), the rate constants are plotted versus temperature (e.g., Fig. 10b) and extrapolated to Earth surface temperatures. If this method is used in isolation, then the curve must be assumed to extrapolate linearly to lower temperatures, an assumption that cannot be guaranteed without calibration at low temperatures (Blackwell, 1987; Rutter & Blackwell, 1995).

     Calibration tests use several fossils from several diverse sites that have been accurately and precisely dated by another technique, such as C-14, etc. . ." [emphasis added]

•  
  • William M. Last & John P. Smol, Tracking Environmental Change Using Lake Sediments, Published 2001, Springer, ISBN 0792364821 ( Link)

Or, how about the following 2004 publication?

     "With suitable calibration, racemization data can also be used to construct a history of temperature for the samples in question. Understanding diagenetic amino acid racemization (AAR) kinetics requires a combination of laboratory kinetic experimentation and testing of kinetic models with natural field samples that have independent chronostratigraphic control. These models must also incorporate information on the temperature dependence ("apparent" or "bulk" activation energy) as derived from either elevated temperature laboratory experiments or data from field samples with known ages and diagenetic temperatures. Over the past two decades, several well-calibrated datasets and a variety of kinetic models have become available: foraminifera results provide calibration for low temperature kinetics ( e.g., Muller, 1984) and paired radiocarbon-AAR results provide calibration at higher surface temperatures (e.g., Miller et al., 1997)." [emphasis added]  

• Wehmiller, J. F., Amino acid racemization kinetic modeling and the late Quaternary paleoclimate of the North Carolina coastal plain, American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2004, abstract #OS43A-0535 ( Link)

Need any more? 

By the way, what "illuminating" references do you have to shed light on this issue and explain your comment that I and evidently a few others have misrepresented the need for calibration of AAR? - that AAR is actually an independent dating technique? I would love to see such illuminating references myself.

Sean

---

A Question for Pitman & Taylor

For the benefit of those who may not understand highly technical scientific language, could either one of you explain the significance of whether AAR is or is not calibrated against carbon 14 dating in relation to the main topic of disagreement: the age of life on earth. What conclusion can I reach regarding the age of life on earth given those two scenarios?

Nic Samojluk

---

Another Question from Dr. Taylor

Sean:

Which is the publcation to which Dr. Brand referred?

Erv 

---

"How does that really matter?"

Erv,

I don't know which reference Leonard had in mind.  Ask him. How does that really matter though? - - given all the references I've given you?  What do you have to counter? That's what I'm curious about . . .

See also:

"AAR is not a numerical dating method, per se; however, it can be used for a variety of chronological and palaeotemperature applications. Provided there is some independent age control, AAR can be used to extend or to improve upon the chronology, or to reconstruct the temperature history at a site. 

B. J. JOHNSON, G. H. MILLER (1997), ARCHAEOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS OF AMINO ACID RACEMIZATION*, Archaeometry 39 (2), 265–287. ( Link)

Sean

---

AAR Not an Independent Dating Technique

Hey Erv,

Here are a few more recently published references for your review regarding AAR dating strongly suggesting that this particular technique is a "calibrated relative dating technique" and is therefore not truly an "independent" dating technique [relevant emphasis has been added]:

     "The increase in the proportion of D-amino acids (a function of time and temperature) can be used as a tool for estimating age. Attempts to provide absolute dates calibrate the amount of racemization using samples of known age and then use these predict the age of samples with known D/L values but of unknown age. A recent paper by Kaufman (in press Geology) estimates that the compound accuracy of this approach is +/- 20%." [accessed 11/29/07] ( Link) 

     "Although the finding of this dating method was meaningful, this dating method is considered controversial. The rate of racemization is dependent on temperature, or the thermal history of the fossil. The rate of racemization increases at warmer sites than at cooler sites. Samples from areas of different latitude tend to have greater age range differences. To obtain accurate dates, the temperature has to be constant for thousands of years. The speed of racemization slows down if the sample materials gets cold. The study carried out with bone revealed that unassured temperature of plus or minus 2 degree will cause an plus or minus 50% error of the age.

     Amino acid dating cannot obtain the age of the material purely from the data itself. The rate of racemization can not be standardized by itself because it is too changeable. Thus, because of the rate problem, this dating technique must rely on other dating techniques to standardize its findings. As a matter of fact, the ages obtained from racemization dating must rely on other techniques such as Carbon 14, and if the dating of Carbon 14 is not accurate, racemization dating can never be certain.

     Materials can easily be contaminated. Sample material can lose or gain amino acids by leaching, diagenetic formation of amino acids, bacterial contamination, and/or contaminated during collection or preparation. If the materials are contaminated by water, their racemic clocks will be ruined. Even though there must be some moisture for the occurrence of racemization, continual inflow of moisture can cause many kinds of contamination. For example, if pH of the moisture is higher, the racemization process would be very rapid, and that changes the age of the sample." [Bibliography with almost all references from 2000] ( Link)

     "The potential variation in the racemization rate has led some paleoanthropologists to consider this dating technique relative rather than chronometric.   It is, perhaps, best considered to be a calibrated relative dating technique which puts it somewhere between relative and chronometric methods." [accessed 11/29/07] ( Link)

     "If the racemization rate for a particular system in any given material is known then AAR can be used to estimate the thermal history of any cross-dated samples. However, good independent age controls such as 14C dated samples and a reliable kinetic model for racemization rates are needed (Johnson and Miller 1997).  

• Judith Robins, Martin Jones and Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith, Amino Acid Racemization Dating in New Zealand: An Overview and Bibliography, Auckland University, Private Bag 92019, March 20, 2001 ( Link)

[Sean Pitman]

---

Amino Acid Dating Technique Unreliable

Hi Sean,

I've been following the string of comments on amino acid racemization dating.  I'm a Ph.D. synthetic organic chemist and have worked a considerable amount with several amino acid antibiotics (medicinal chemistry) in the lab and find the AAR dating method very intriguing.   Racemization is very common with heat, acidic or basic pH, (and time) requiring specialized techniques/reaction conditions to prevent isomerization when working with AA's in the laboratory.  As such, it would seem that the AA environment would need to be relatively constant over the long period of time to ensure accurate/meaningful results for dating purposes.  This has been noted in the literature as well.

BTW, I was looking at your web-site description of the racemization that occurs in isoleucine, (and it may be just oversight), but I noticed that the second structure for isoleucine is incorrect. During the racemization process, only the C-alpha stereocenter should racemize and not the C-beta stereocenter (as shown).

   The C-alpha stereocenter is acidic enough to undergo racemization, whereas C-beta is very stable.  Isoleucine is unique among the AA's since it has two stereocenters (C-alpha and C-beta); consequently, the racemization that occurs affords stereocenters that are enantiomeric at C-alpha; however D- and L-isoleucine are actually diastereomers overall (non superimposable, non mirror images) because C-beta stereochemistry doesn't invert.

Thanks for the interesting reading.

Christina Harris

---

AAR Essay Edited

Hey Christina,

Thanks for your very helpful comments and observations.  I've also made the suggested corrections to the isoleucine illustration in my essay on AAR dating  (thanks for that pickup).  Anyway, I really appreciate your following this discussion.  Hope all is well and not too cold over there in Michigan!

Sean

---

One Single Major Flood

Catastrophe?

Dear Dr. Pitman:

I just discovered your web site while researching 14C/tree ring dating. At the risk of sounding as though I am polishing the apple, I want to say that your site is one of the most informative and objective sites I've seen.

About me: I am strictly an amateur who has studied the subject of evolution/creation for close to forty years. I have two years of college. My intended major was to be in archaeology/anthropology. (Unfortunately, I lost my wife to cancer at a very young age and dropped out of college so I could rear my four children. I've had two years of college: Pasadena City College in Pasadena Cal. and West Texas State University in Canyon, Texas.

I've participated in five digs in two states. I've had two or three articles published, in collaboration with a colleague, in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. I have not submitted anything to the above orgganization in several years as my views on the Flood and fossil record are not compatible with their philosophy.

I am a long time member (and past president) of the Siskiyou Writers Club, president of Yreka Toastmasters Club and teach an adult Sunday school class at Yreka, California.

I have just begun, in my Sunday school class, a study of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, hence, the interest in dating techniques and the evidence of 14C in coal.

My field work is long behind me as the old knees at age eighty don't allow me to get down and dig. I now do my digging with the computer.

As regards the Flood, I do not attribute the entire  fossil record to the Flood. Rather, we have antideluvian, deluvian and post deluvian fossil deposits. Trying to place the entire fossil record in the year of the Flood is one hypothesis that has brought "Creationists" under fire from the secular scientific community.

I bring up this issue since I saw your comments on the Flood and its possible affects on 14C. I'm sure it did, but I urge you to make a more critical examination of the fossil record. (I may have drawn the wrong conclusion. ) You will see that there are many sites that are not the result of a flood, but of a local environment that, obviously, is not even the result of water.

I did not originate this idea, but arrived at this view of the fossil record as a result of reading other researchers' writings as well as studying paleontology and the environment in which fossils are found.

Hope you will accept this as a genuine contribution to your site and not a criticism.

Sincerely,

Edward C. Lain

---

Noah's Flood Does Not Explain all the

Geologic Record

Hi Ed,

Thanks for your E-mail.  I really appreciate it.

You may be surprised to hear this, but I agree with you - at least to the degree of what you said in your e-mail.  I do not mean to suggest in any of my essays that the geologic column or fossil record are necessarily the result of a single worldwide flooding event.  I don't think that is true.  I do think there is evidence for a huge worldwide catastrophic event.  But, I don't think that this explains the entire record.  I think subsequent events also occurred and are recorded in the record.  I think these events may be related, but are not part of the same event.  Beyond this, I do think that all of the events recorded show good evidence of very little time passing between them (geologically speaking) and that they occurred within very recent history - i.e., less than 10,000 years.

Anyway, thanks again for your comments.

Sean

---

Email Exchange Between Andy Hanson

& Sean Pitman

Dear Andy,

I came across your review of my review of Understanding Genesis and found it most interesting. I hope you don't mind if I respond with a few comments? Your comments are in Bold font.

__________

UNDERSTANDING GENESIS: CONTEMPORARY ADVENTIST PERSPECTIVES reviewed by Sean D. Pitman is provocative. Kudos to Bull, Guy, and Taylor for allowing a traditional Adventist to review the book. The authors argue against a literal seven-day creation week and worldwide flood. Pitman damn's Brian Bull, Fritz Guy, and Ivan Blazen with faint praise, but apparently Ervin Taylor gets no praise at all.

Clearly I disagree with the authors of this book, but by no means do I feel that they are less than moral, upright, good men who are doing what they think is right as best as they know how. I'm actually pretty good friends with some of them. I feel especially close to Ivan Blazen as he has done a lot of good things for me and my wife for which I will be forever grateful. And Erv Taylor, in particular, is to be commended for honestly presenting his views as best as he can, and for personally inviting me to review Understanding Genesis. 

-

You see, this isn't a moral issue for me or about salvation per se. In fact, I think there will be a lot of very surprised atheists in heaven. Rather, I see this more about establishing the basis for a solid hope in the reality of the Gospel's "Good News". That's my main concern here.  

Pitman delivers some (apparently) well-deserved shots. The notion that animals don't experience "true suffering" is silly on "on its face". The notion that predation and death "make important contributions to our lives" is a hoot. He also has fun with the word, "non-scientific".

Ivan Blazen's use of the word "non-scientific" is not a mute point here.  This is the point on which all of the authors of this book anchor themselves - that religion and science are fundamentally different enterprises that do not overlap. Religious is thought by these authors to say nothing about science and science to say nothing about religion.  It is felt that these searches for truth are entirely independent.  That is why Blazen suggests that the Genesis account has nothing to say about science whatsoever; that it is beyond the realm of scientific investigation and has its own completely separate "transcendent interests".  All of the other authors feel the same way, not only about Genesis, but about all of the Bible and religion in general.

-

For example, Dr. Bull wrote a paper entitled, "The Two Incommensurate Worlds" a while back in which he explained how he is a scientist six days a week and a Seventh-day Adventist one day a week. He explains that his scientific views are completely separate from his religious views and actually contradictory.  Yet, he still maintains his religious views in their own independent compartment in his mind because of their beauty - a beauty which he intellectually knows isn't quite real, but it appeals to his heart and soul so much that he can't let it go.

-

As far as I see it, this view is mistaken.  There is no necessary dichotomy between science and religion. Obviously, there is a dichotomy for some, like Dr. Bull, but I suggest that these incommensurate worlds need not be so separate. That they could and should in fact be one in the same.

When Pitman states that "other forms of religion, such as Hinduism, are much more compatible with evolution than is Christianity", readers are asked to assume that this is obviously fact.

It's something that, although I know is not obvious to many, is quite obvious to me. From the perspective of a religion like Hinduism, one does not need to live in incommensurate worlds.  One's religious views and one's mainstream scientific views can be quite compatible and overlap quite nicely.  This seems to be a bit more difficult when it comes to Christianity; especially the official SDA take on Christianity (as the "Incommensurate Worlds" essay by Dr. Bull confirms).

-

Now, I know this concept deserved a bit more unpacking in my review, but I was limited in what I could say by the editors of AT to under 1450 words.

However, when he asserts that "any useful purely empirical observations [are not] entirely independent of interpretation or value judgments", he attempts to support this assertion with the following, unrelated scientific truth. "The very basis of science includes the ability to interpret evidence and establish predictive value." In an attempt to make this comment relevant to his argument, he redefines this meaning of "value" by equating it with "a value judgment".

The "automatic default" argument is a "straw man" as it is argued here. Pitman implies that that authors Guy and Bull equate the everyday expectations of farmers and sheepherders with what the Israelites believed to be the miraculous interventions of God. 

You left off the part where Dr. Bull argues that science is a purely empirical enterprise. That it has no basis in personal motives or desires or the personal values of the scientist or community of scientists - basically that there is no personal bias in science that affects how one interprets the raw data. While that may in fact be the goal of science, it isn't how science works in practice. 

-

In his book, Personal Knowledge, chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi (1891-1976) criticized the common view that the scientific method is purely objective and generates objective knowledge. Polanyi cast this view as a misunderstanding of the scientific method and of the nature of scientific inquiry, generally.

 -

He argued that scientists do and must follow personal passions in appraising facts and in determining which scientific questions to investigate. He concluded that a structure of liberty is essential for the advancement of science - that the freedom to pursue science for its own sake is a prerequisite for the production of knowledge through peer review and the scientific method.

-

In this light, no scientific endeavor is truly free of personal or even group bias when it comes to interpretation of the evidence. Thus enters a "value judgement" that is not absolutely empirical in the true sense of the word. This is why different equally rational scientists can look at the same data set and often come away with very different conclusions as to what that data means. If science were actually some sort of absolute empirical enterprise, all "scientists" should eventually end up with the same conclusion given the same set of data. 

 -

This isn't what happens - even given that the uninterpreted data itself is independently and empirically "true". It is in the interprative process that humans insert a very subjective element into the actual practice of "science".

-

So, is it really all that clear that science is all that unique from what religion could be?  Or, are all religious ideas distinct from scientific ideas by definition?  If you saw someone raised from the dead with your own eyes, someone who you knew had been dead for several days and had started decomposing, would only "farmers and sheep herders" be able to classify that as a true miracle?  I know I would.  Wouldn't you be tempted as well? 

If so, would that miracle have both scientific and religious implications?  You bet your life it would. 

- 

But, would this conclusion be "scientific"? In a sense it would be.  The hypothesis of miracle, or deliberate creativity or design by a highly intelligent and powerful creator, can be based on extensive experience with the workings of non-deliberate processes of nature and lower-level intelligences (to include human intelligences). 

-

This experience is equivalent to a long history of testing the hypothesis of what any of us would define as a true "miracle" against a host of alternative explanations.  So, when one actually comes across something like Lazarus raising from the dead or the splitting of the Red Sea, or a cloud of fire by night and shade by day following you around wherever you go, or Moses predicting huge quantities of meat the very next day and massive numbers of quail are dropped off exactly on time, or fire coming down from Heaven and hitting Elijah's alter spot-on right after he prays for it, the hypothesis of miracle becomes very well supported - scientifically.

-

But, are religious notions subject to potential falsification?  I suggest to you that they should be. Various Biblical authors also seem to suggest this. Even Paul argues, "If Christ be not raised [from the dead], your faith is in vain". 1Cor. 15:17.  Elsewhere God is quoted as asking us to "prove him" and see if he is telling the truth or not.  Various tests are proposed for prophets, for God being who he says he is, and for the validity of miracles and prophecies. It is suggested that if these tests fail, the religious implications supported by them fail as well.

-

For even further clarification regarding the mindset of these authors, I once asked Dr. Bull for an example of something he believed to be true that existed outside of his mind that was not subject to scientific investigation or potential falsification.  Dr. Bull immediately replied that he knew that his wife loved him and that this "truth" was not subject to testing or potential falsification. I then asked him what he would do if someone gave him a video of his wife having an affair?  He turned a bit red and said, "I would believe my wife."  He also suggested that I never put my own wife to the test. 

-

The fact is though, regardless of if we are consciously aware or not, we do put our loved ones to the test.  Sure, the fact that we love them is not testable. But, the notion that they love us is most certainly based on physical testable potentially falsifiable evidence.  Let's say my wife started having an affair, and stopped telling me that she loved me.  Let's say she started yelling at me every day and deliberately did many other things that she knew I didn't like.   I might start to question my love hypothesis.  I dare say Dr. Bull would do the same thing. 

-

The same is true of our love hypothesis for God.  Does God love me?  Is this hypothesis testable?  If there is no physical evidence to suggest that he does, or if there seems to be a lot of physical evidence to suggest that he does not, how could I continue to think that God really does love me - - and still be mentally sane? 

-

You see, a rational religion or notion that God not only exists but also loves me must be based on some form of physical testable potentially falsifiable evidence - i.e., "science".

When Pitman argues that geologic dating methods are calibrated against each other, he is stating a fact. However, when he goes on to say, "there is a great deal of scientific evidence to suggest that life on Earth and the formation (sic) all of the sedimentary layers of the geologic record were formed recently and rapidly", he fails to define, "recently" and "rapidly". This assertion is unsupported, and, one hopes, he is referring to geological rather than historical time.
 

I thought it was fairly clear that I was writing my review from what I did mention was a "historic Seventh-day Adventist understanding".  As I mentioned in my opening paragraphs, that includes belief in a literal creation week that took place in recent history. The historical Adventist perspective is that "recent" means well less than 10,000 years or, even more specifically, "around 6,000 years."  That, I'm afraid, is well shy of anything one might call geologic time from a mainstream perspective.

-

To explain this a bit further, which I didn't have the space to do in my review, I believe that the material on the Earth may be very old indeed, but not life or the sedimentary layers of the geologic column or fossil record. I believe that there is very good evidence that these particular features of this planet are quite young indeed and give striking evidence of a world-wide watery catastrophe or shortly spaced catastrophes that occured within what mainstream scientists would call "historical time".

-

For more information on this "evidence" see my website at: www.DetectingDesign.com 

Pitman concludes his review with a series of "yes" or "no" questions that seem to be designed to force the reader to decide whether or not he/she believes in God, the literal truth of the Bible, life after death, or heaven.
 

Rather, I'm trying to get the reader to consider the basis of their beliefs - to ask why he/she believes in the Bible or claims to accept the Christian and especially the SDA perspective.  I'm basically asking how someone can claim to be Christian or SDA and not believe that much in the Bible actually happened as described?  Where is the rational basis for "faith" in the metaphysical claims of the Bible if there is no belief in those claims of the Bible that are actually subject to physical testing and verification or potential falsification?  Without physical evidence of some sort, how is any sort of religious belief of any more rational basis than a child's belief in Santa Claus or some other wishful or perhaps quite beautiful fantasy world?

His final sentence is an important question regarding religious belief, and it is worthy of careful and prayerful consideration: "Does it matter".

For those who claim the title of SDA, I suggest that it should matter very much - at least where solid hope in the reality of the "good news" of the Gospel is concerned.

-

I do thank you again for your thoughts and for taking the time to write this review. I'm sure others appreciate your thoughts here as well.

-

Sincerely,

-

Sean

-

www.DetectingDesign.com

Andy Hanson

Prof. of Education at Cal State University

http://adventistperspective.blogspot.com/

---

The Age of Life on Planet Earth

and More

Hey Steve,

Thanks for your letters and for your questions.  I hope you don't mind if I respond line-by-line (I've bolded your comments).

On 12/27/07, Steve Daignault <sdaignau@gmail.com > wrote:

Dr. Pitman:

-

Hi.  I hope you are enjoying this time of year.  Hopefully, my subject made it through your various automatic and manual filters and you're actually reading this.  I found much of what I read on detectingdesign.com very compelling as I also do not find any meaningful or necessary separation between evolution and the divine (my words, not yours, but they lean toward the same interpretation for each of us).  I am not sure of the source of evolutionary facilitation as being the divine, but that may be the basis for faith and self evidency (more of my words), among other things.  I have very little to offer, but hope to expand on my own understanding of things based upon your further insight.

- 

To your way of thinking...;

-

1.  Is there a time line of ('intelligent design') interventions? 

Based just on the geologic evidence alone I think there is good evidence to believe that the time line is less than 100,000 years. I personally favor a timeline of less than 10,000 years.for the existence of life on this planet.

 

Are there certain events that represent interventions?  I think there are many 'historical' events that could be or are considered milestones.  I am interested in any that are significant to you.  And I am interested in your understanding/belief of these two historical milestones (for example). 

 -

 a) Some believe the specific existance of the mitochondria in the eukaryote cell is the result of a tightly dependent and mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship between two precursor cells with the 'original' mitochondria providing the evolutionarily superior means to detoxify oxygen. 

 -

b) The supposed (and seemingly substantiated) meteor strike that 'killed' off the 'dinosaurs'.  What I am interested in is your understanding of these two historical events (they are not intended to be inter-related).  And I am curious to understand how you believe intelligent design intervention(s) occur.  Are there milestones in history that represent interventions?  The Big Bang?  If there wasn't a Big Bang, was there a 'first creation'?

These are very difficult questions and I don't think I have any clear answers here - at least nothing I consider very solid as far as supportable evidence goes.  I'll tell you where I'm leaning though in regard to these questions.

-

I am what I would call a young-life creationist.  I believe that there is good evidence to suggest that life on Earth is young.  This isn't to say that the material or inanimate matter of the Earth is young.  I personally believe that it is probably very old indeed.  It may have arisen, ultimately, from something like a Big Bang many billions of years ago (a debatable theory these days - even in mainstream circles). 

- 

Where I see evidence in the inanimate universe of design is in what some scientists refer to as anthropic evidences. In short, the universal laws of nature seem to have been set rather arbitrarily just right so that life as we know it could exist in this universe. Change just one of these laws just a little bit, like the strong nuclear force by a fraction of one percent, and nothing in the material universe could exist.  The same thing goes for the location of the Earth within our Milky Way Galaxy. 

- 

We seem to be located in an ideal position for both life to exist, but for intelligent life, like us humans, to be able to look out into the universe and study it in significant detail.  Our ideal location within our galaxy makes this possible.  There are many many more interesting perfections about our universe, solar system, and planet that are just so - - so that we could be here.  All very interesting . . .

-

As far as what killed off the dinosaurs, there may have been asteroids involved, but I think it was a bit more sudden than mainstream scientists suggest.  I think that the direct cause of dinosaur extinction was massive sudden worldwide flooding of Biblical proportions. This enormous series of shortly-spaced catastrophes may have been caused or developed by meteor impact however.  There certainly is evidence of some massive impacts in the Earth's crust. 

-

You mention the symbiotic relationship of eukaryotic cells and mitochondria. 

-

This is generally thought to be an evolved relationship where once upon a time mitochondria lived separately and our eukaryotic cellular ancestors derived their energy needs from some other source.  While I suppose this is a possible scenario, I consider it a very unlikely notion.  It seems to me that the interdependence of eukaryotic cells with mitochondria is so tight and complex as to indicate deliberate design at this level.  The mutational changes necessary to develop this interdependence are too great in my estimation to have been the result of random mutation and function-based selection ( i.e., the proposed evolutionary mechanism).
 

2.  Is Earth and the Human Race 'uniquely qualified'?  Is there anything special about this corner of the universe or might there be other 'samples'?  Is there a 'Rule of Self-Evidency' (whatever that means to YOU)?  Does the Heisenberg uncertaintly principle play into any of your views on the future state of the know universe (for lack of a better term)?

If by uniquely qualified you mean that we humans have reached some sort of pinnacle of perfection (evolutionary or otherwise), I don't think so.  I think there is certainly room for higher level creatures - physically, mentally, emotionally, and morally.

-

As far as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, I've always been uncomfortable with it.  It seems that uncertainty and the resulting appearance of randomness or chaos is the result of a lack of knowledge concerning all influencing forces that are involved with a given observation.  So, I suppose, on a practical level, humans cannot overcome uncertainty and the resulting expansion of the Chaos Theory - i.e., Butterfly Effect.  But, philosophically, I think it possible to overcome Heisenberg. 

2a.  Is the speed of light a 'hard' limitation for travel through space?  (Remember, I am asking to your way of thinking.  I don't expect you to know - I certainly don't).

I've actually thought a lot about this question and have even written a paper on it when I was taking physics classes.  I don't have time to go into my thinking in detail here, but I do not believe in a universal speed limit.  I do think the speed of light is limited relative to its own source, but I do not believe in the idea that nothing can go faster than the speed of light.

3.  What is the connection between Mankind's understanding of its origins and Mankind's origins?  This is my question in my words and not yours....  - Is the Eukaryote Superhelix that connection?  If so, how do Mankind's ancient religious texts OR histories play into this intelligent design model that I am calling the Eukaryote Superhelix but that I mean to be YOUR intelligent design understanding and model?  A statement: if I am understanding you correctly, the source of the intelligent design is not the source of the ancient religious texts or histories.

This is going beyond the realm of the information listed on my website.  I do think there is very good evidence to actually identify the most likely agent responsible for the design of the universe and of living things on this planet however.  And, I would argue that this agent is quite reasonably described by would most people or religious texts mean when they use the word "God".  Beyond this I think there is good evidence to support the notion that the identity of this "God" is in line with the Christian-view of God.  But, of course, that position requires support a great deal of other information that is just as complex as the basic information listed on my website.

There is a ton of content on your site and I read only the tiniest cross section.  I like the direction much of your conversation/argument goes, but I am curious to know how you address some of the issues in the above three items.  In truth, there is a final question depending upon some of your thoughts to the above three.  That would involve whether you believe Mankind is an endstate and why - along with what other endstates you may believe are 'in play'. 

I don't believe in endstates per se.  I think that humans can continue learning and growing and improving - but only with outside aide by a force of greater moral and intellectual power than is natural to us (i.e . Diving aid).  Without this aid, I see the human race as being on a path toward ultimate genetic extinction if self-destruction doesn't come first.  We are in fact devolving with each generation.  Every child has 200 to 300 mutations that his/her parents didn't have.  And, those mutations that are functional are almost all detrimental.  The birth rate needed to keep up with this genetic decline is on the order of 60 to 80 children per woman - - far beyond our actual reproductive rates.  In fact, all slowly-reproducing species are in the same boat as we are. 

I sincerely look forward to your reply!

I appreciate your thoughts and look forward to hearing any further ideas you may have.

Regards,

Steve Daignault

 

Sean

---

 Ann Questions Dr. Erv Taylor's

Views on Genesis

Dear Dr. Pitman,

       Thank you for the insightful book review of Understanding Genesis in the Nov/Dec, 2007 issue of Adventist Today.  Had I a copy of the magazine and read your article, I would have been spared the displeasure of Ervin Taylor's lecture on this book at the Tierrasanta church on May 10, 2008.

       Taylor's lecture was tedious and poorly presented, but he certainly got his message across: whatsoever theory science presents, if it does not agree with Scripture, then Scirpture is wrong. 

       I was shocked to be sitting in an Adventist church with fellow Adventist listening to a supposed Adventist teach the big bang, evolution, and more.  In your book review you said the writers of Understanding Genesis "...somehow continue to carry the title of SDA!"  I would further say that given their wide-encompassing disbeliefs, they shouldn't even call themselves Christians.

       Taylor and his ilk are far beyond the self-absorbed, whining, criticize-everything "Sadventists."  They are the goats amongst the sheep.  Indeed, we have more to fear from within than outside of the church.

Respectfully,

Ann,  San Diego

---

 Dr. Pitman Responds

Dear Ann,

 

I obviously agree that the ideas espoused by the writers of Understanding Genesis, and especially by Erv Taylor, are distinctly anti-Christian.  At the very least they are overwhelmingly anti-Adventist.  I am just as shocked as you are that these men can remotely think to pass themselves off as Seventh-day Adventists "in good standing" - to use Erv's own words. 

What most disturbs me though is that Erv and others like him are asked to speak to our church and students from our own church pulpits and at the head of our classrooms by our own churches and schools.  What is our leadership thinking?  

 Erv Taylor spoke these very same views in the Loma Linda University church to a packed audience on Sabbath in front of one of the vice presidents of the General Conference and the VP said absolutely nothing to counter Erv nor was he even evidently disturbed by what was said from the church pulpit. 

I too am shocked by what is going on in our churches and schools and am doing all I can to stem this tide.  Thank you again for your own concern.

 

In case you are interested I've attached my original unedited review of Understanding Genesis (the published version was significantly shortened) as well as an interesting review of my review with my response.

 

Sincerely,

 

Sean

---

 Dr. Taylor Comments

About His Lecture

-

Sean:

-

Thank you very much for sharing the letter from Ann (I'm sorry, her last name is not noted) concerning my lecture at the Adventist Forum in San Diego at the Tierrasanta SDA Church last Sabbath and your response to her. 

- 

Her and your comments are fascinating.  I'm so glad that, in the view of Ann, I (and my "ilk") am "far beyond the self-absorbed, whining, criticize everything "Sadventists."   "Sadventists!"  I never heard that one before.  Excellent!

I'm sorry that to Ann my "lecture was tedious and poorly presented."  It just shows you can't please everybody.  My wife was there and she usually thinks of my lectures as on the "tedious" side since her view is that the best way to deal with Christian (including Adventist) fundamentalists such as Ann and yourself is by benign neglect.  Her motto is: "If you ignore them, perhaps they will go away."   As I said during the question and answer period after the lecture, I would wish that would work but you and Cliff Goldstein will not let go and allow Adventist Fundamentlist Creationism to die a natural death by neglect as has happened with the "King of the North" and "The Daily."

-

You and likeminded Adventists will not go away and you should not, since you have a right to your views and to work in any moral and legal way to advance your views.  It seems to me that the problem is that you do not want to grant the same right to those who disagree with you in the church.  You want me and anyone who does not share your views excluded from the church. 

- 

So I continue to tilt at windmills, as my wife terms it.  (Actually, she thought my lecture was quite interesting for a change, since she did not go to sleep.  And a couple of my friends who came to hear me were quite surprised.  They thought I would indeed be boring.  They said they were "enlightened".).  I'm sure that you will want to get a tape or cd of my remarks so you can confirm Ann's view of how tedious and poorly presented my comments actually were.

-

I know you think my opinions are anti-Adventist, but might I ask you why my views are "anti-Christian"?   They are certainly anti-fundamentalist Christian.  That's certainly true.  But "anti-Christian"?  You certainly must have a very narrow understanding of what Christianity is all about.   I know you have a very narrow understanding of Adventist Christianity, so this would be congruent. 

For example, I remain really puzzled that you said once (if I understood you correctly) that you would leave both Christianity and Adventism if you were convinced that life is really hundreds of millions of years old on this planet.  That strikes me as mixing categories. 

-  

As the Adventist Church matures at least in North America, the views that I and those that share my views hold will not be all that disturbing or unusual.  They are hardly controversial any more in progressive SDA centers in North America as you have noted in your note to Ann.  I'm sure that you will attempt to slow that progress, as you and Ann have every right to do. 

- 

Perhaps the only thing we can agree on is that, in the end, the truth will win.

Cheers from "the goat among the sheep," (with apologies to Ann).

Cheers,

-

Erv

-

PS   In a few weeks, the Adventist Today web site (www.atoday.com) will be hosting a series of blogs that will include mine as well as one by Cliff Goldstein.  Since Adventist Today fosters freedom of expression in Adventism, we would welcome even your comments on the AT blogs.

- 

PSS  By the way, do you subscribe to Adventist Today these days?  If you do, what do you think of our new format and editor?

- 

---

 Dr. Sean Pitman Responds

Hey Erv,

 

Personally, I find your lectures quite interesting and well-presented (at least the ones I've personally attended).  Perhaps that is because I like the details and do not find them tedious.  Obviously, this isn't the case for everyone.  Many find my own lectures quite dull and tedious - my own wife included on occasion.  While I am trying to make them more interesting to a general audience, I'm with you on this one.  Delivering presentations that are less than boring to a general audience on difficult detailed topics is a real art which I have yet to master.

Of course, this whole thing isn't about style, but about content.  You are basically an agnostic, not knowing what to tell your own granddaughter if she asked you for evidence of God's existence. Yet somehow you want to call yourself not only Christian, but a Seventh-day Adventist Christian?  An agnostic Christian? an agnostic SDA?  Hmmmm . . . I'm sorry, but that strikes me as just a bit schizophrenic.  I have to agree with the likes of Richard Dawkins on this one and say that it makes much more sense to me for those who believe that the available scientific evidence speaks strongly for completely natural explanations for the origin of the universe and of life on this planet, to include its diversity, to leave ideas of a "God" completely out of the picture.  God is completely irrelevant given such a perspective - Christian or otherwise.

That's just my own opinion of course and one I happen to share with the likes of Richard Dawkins (of all people to share an opinion with).  You are certainly welcome to such views and I even applaud your efforts to share what you think is good and right.  

I know you like to think of yourself as being persecuted by me and others like me.  You paint yourself as being open to all ideas and allowing any viewpoint to have a platform from your journal, Adventists Today while painting me as being very narrow and closed minded. The problem with this notion is that we already have such a place in our society where one can have such freedoms of speech and expression as you are trying to promote.  You therefore are not creating anything new here.  We already have what you are trying to create.  What you are doing then is trying to tear down something that is unique to make it like something else that we already have in the good ol' US of A.   Your efforts are to destroy, not to create something new.   

 

Of course, the SDA position may in fact be in error and worth destroying.  If so, why not just work to destroy it openly instead of trying to take on the title of SDA while you are going about this work of destruction?  That just seems rather deceptive to me.  You aren't an SDA in any really meaningful sense of the word.  You are at best a social Adventist only in that you have grown up in SDA society and have friends that are SDA.  Appreciation of a society or group does not make you part of what makes that group unique. Uniqueness requires rules, rules that have at least some form of enforcement. 

Take Republicans and Democrats for example.  You can't be a demoncrat or republican in this country unless you subscribe to a few fundamental rules that allow you to be part of that club.  You might call yourself one or the other without actually taking on the actual doctrines of one or the other.  That's certainly possible.  But taking on the title of a group is meaningless without actually taking on the doctrines that make that group unique.  Regardless of if you called yourself a democrat, if you started speaking out like a republican, the democratic party would eventually exclude you from representing their group - no matter how ardently you claimed to still be a democrat "in good standing". 

Is that a form of persecution?  Sort of - but not really in any significant sense in this country since you are free to join or to leave this or that group and its rules and regulations of speech and conduct as a representative.  A group is nothing if it allows just anyone to represent it.  The democratic party would not hire George W. Bush to represent it - even if Bush were to claim the title of a "Democrat".  That doesn't mean that Bush can't be friends with some democrats (as unlikely as that sounds).  It just means he isn't a democrat as far as democratic doctrine is concerned. 

Of course, we've gone over this many times before.  I'm perfectly willing to continue it as long as I'm around.  I'm just glad, as I'm sure you are, that this country is based on Christian freedoms of religion and expression.  I feel so grateful that we both are free to express our views openly without fear of civil reprisals. 

Sincerely yours,

Sean 

P.S.  As far as Andy Nash being the Editor of Adventist Today, and another classmate and friend of mine, Debbie Hicks, helping out in the editing, I'm not exactly thrilled as you can imagine.  Both are very talented - don't get me wrong.  They are very good at what they do.  I'm just sorry their extraordinary talents and energies are being spent in support of a journal that is so fundamentally opposed to what I believe is the basis of the "Good News". 

 

---

  Lynn Heath Supports

Erv Taylor's Position

 Sean,

Vaclav Havel once said he would rather have a beer with someone who was searching for the truth than someone who had found it. 

It seems to me that you mistake Erv's search for truth and his willingness to persuade people to his point of view as a desire to destroy rather than a desire to change.

You, I think, mix the ideas of "fundamental beliefs" with "truth".  Ellen White thought of truth as "advancing", probably she meant our understanding of truth was to advance.  The SDA Fundamental Beliefs should be subject to change as a reflection of our greater understanding of truth.  These beliefs have changed over the years without destroying the church.

Your illustration of Democrats and Republicans is a good example of positional changes that formal organizations make all the time.  Every four years the party platforms include or exclude things that many in the party dislike but they do not try to "destroy" the party, they simply work for change and if, on occasion, they do leave the party then the party is often poorer for it.

We remodel our houses, but seldom destroy them.

You wrote:  "Of course, the SDA position may in fact be in error and worth destroying.  If so, why not just work to destroy it openly instead of trying to take on the title of SDA while you are going about this work of destruction?  That just seems rather deceptive to me.  You aren't an SDA in any really meaningful sense of the word."

Things that are in error are worth changing not destroying.  The effort to change things by persuasion is not at all deceptive and it seems Erv is an SDA in the best sense of the word, a searcher for truth.  Erv should no more disqualify himself from SDA membership than you should.  Both of you are needed, that's how we follow an advancing truth. 

Lynn Heath

---

 The Foundational Pillars

of the SDA Church

Lynn,

I don't mind someone searching for the truth.  We are all doing that - hopefully.  My confusion is when someone desires to label themselves with a name or title that does not really represent their current position on the path toward "truth". 

Erv is in fact trying to destroy some very basic foundational pillars of the SDA position.  He is in fact attacking these pillars while at the same time calling himself an SDA in good standing.  That is very confused thinking as I see it.  He is not an SDA at all when it comes to the key doctrinal positions that define the SDA Church.  I don't mind that he's not an SDA.  What I mind is that he represents himself as an SDA - as something he isn't. 

And yes, a change of a fundamental belief or building block is a destruction of that doctrinal position.  If you remove what is fundamental to what it means to be a democrat, you have effectively destroyed the concept of the democratic party (vs. say, the republican party).  What Erv is challenging is not some side issue of SDA theology.  He is challenging the most fundamental aspects of what it means to be not only and SDA, but a Christian as well - - as I see it anyway.

Again, I really don't mind if someone is out to remove certain errors from the thinking of other individuals or even groups.  My whole issue here is with Erv's attempt to call himself by a name that does not really represent him - i.e., false advertising/self misrepresentation.  That is what I like about Richard Dawkins.  Dawkins may be harsh and sharp tongued, but at least no one has any question about where he stands or what labels can be properly applied to his positions. He certainly doesn't misrepresent himself.  In this, he is very consistent and logical in my view - unlike Erv Taylor.

Sean

 

---

 Fundamental Doctrines Do Evolve

 

 

Sean:

 

I think we have had an exchange on this point on several occasions but feel we are largely talking past each other because of the great divergence in our assumptions.

 

You keep coming back to the assumption that membership in a church is primarily, if not exclusively, about acceptance of a list of propositional statements, i.e. doctrines. You seem to forget that this list has changed over time in our denomination on some very important issues including the idea of the Trinity—which, as you know, our founding mother/fathers did not accept and very much argued against.

 

As Rick Rice has so persuasively addressed in his book "Believing, Behaving, Belonging: Finding New Love for the Church" what is really important in the idea of a church is the community the church creates. You will note that the whole point of his thesis is "Finding New Love for the Church."  And also, please remember the word "cultural" as in Cultural Adventist is not a four letter word.  But I realize that for some reason, you appear to have a hard time understanding any of this.  

 

And, as for Christianity, you still have not answered my question about what it is that I don't believe which you view as, to use your word, so "anti-Christian."

 

What I appreciate about you is that you are willing to engage in serious dialogue in addressing these questions.  Please keep it up.   With mutual dialogue, we might both change our minds about certain conclusions.

Cheers,

Erv.

 

 

---

Defining Cultural Adventism

-

Erv,

-

You hit the nail on the head.  You are a cultural Adventist - not a doctrinal Adventist. I call this sort of thing "Country Club Adventism".  No one has ever been willing to put one's very life on the line for a country club membership - however plush.  Such country club memberships really don't mean much and don't offer other people outside the club any real solid hope that is worth very much - certainly not any worth dying for.  

- 

In short, you like the culture, not the actual doctrinal message that makes Adventism unique and special - a message with which you are very much opposed.  The problem is, the culture of a particular organization does not make you a believer in what makes that organization unique or long-lasting.  The fundamentally unique doctrinal positions are what brought people together.  The unique culture of Adventism arose after and because of the unique doctrinal positions of Adventism. 

 -

Sure, many positions have been added or modified since the SDA Church first started forming.  However, some of the ones your are challenging have always been around from the beginning and actually form the basis of what makes the SDA position unique.  Remove these foundation stones and the SDA position disappears as a doctrinally unique organization. All that you'll have left is a social club and only that for a very short time - perhaps a generation at best.

-

The same thing can be said of any organization. For example, what does it mean to be a cultural democrat? - Does a cultural democrat just like hanging out with democrats even though he/she doesn't believe in the doctrines of the democratic party?  What would happen to the democratic party if there were only cultural democrats in it with no one actually believing in the fundamental doctrinal positions of the democratic party line?  Do you really think it would remain viable for very long based only on the cultural glue? - especially when times get a bit rocky for the basic democratic party doctrinal ideals? 

-

Now I do realize that even though this seems down right obvious to me, you are not the only one who doesn't seem to understand my position here.  That's fine.  Perhaps I'm crazy and thick headed.  Perhaps.  But, until I eventually see the light, I'm going to be a thorn in your side for a very long time - -  just so you know.  ; )   The thing is, I personally like you and I respect the effort you are putting in to promote your views.  My distaste for your ideas isn't a personal thing or even a point of salvation as far as I'm aware.  It's not a moral issue for me.  It is a matter of making people's lives better and more hopeful now.  I realize that this is your goal as well - which is good.  You must realize that I'm countering you for the very same reasons that motivate you.

-

As far as your views being anti-Christian, just ask Richard Dawkins or William Provine about the implications of Darwinian thought and naturalism in general when it comes to Christianity or any notion of God in general.  They can explain to you the anti-Christian implications of your position as good as anyone can.  I just happen to agree with them on this particular point is all.  You yourself make statements that are distinctly anti-Christian.  I mean really, when you make agnostic comments on the platform of a church, SDA or otherwise, how can you then say that you are not coming across as being anti-Christian?

-

All the best,

-

Sean

 

---

To Read the Rest of this on-going Dialogue:

Click Here ==>

 

---

Free Mailing List Club!

 

If you would like to be on our SDA Forum Mailing List, please take a minute to sign up today and join hundreds of others who have done already so. It is free, and you will have the choice of unsuscribing at will. We do not share, nor do we sell your E-mail to others.

Sign Up Today!

* required

Email Address: *

Name:



Email Marketing by VerticalResponse

---

Back to the Top? Click Here ==>

---