Should SDAs have a scientific theory of creation?

[Laodicean]

It might be interesting to have a thread about knowing/thinking/feeling.

Laodicean, when you walk past somebody and know their heart hurts, because you can feel it, that's information. When your heart is lifted by viewing God's creation - that's information.

Emotions are rich with information. This is why in the field of emotional intelligence we sometimes speak of emotions as information animated - or information in motion.

You can always trust your emotions - they are what they are. The question is knowing something about their origin and path into expression. Knowing their nature.

I hear you, Avonia. Yes, I think that should be an interesting discussion, but you would need to lead out in it since I sense that you are more informed on the subject of emotional intelligence than I am.

Maybe I am too analytical, and can use some heart knowledge. So do say on. I'm all ears

Question: Do you think that sensing someone's sadness is sufficient in a relationship? Or should we want more information about that sadness? Maybe it is sufficient to just recognize someone's hurting heart, and we be there for them, in silence and sympathy, without the cacophony of words that may or may not truly describe the problem, right? If I were sure that that is all that is necessary, I would hold back in the future. I do want to learn how to relate to others in a genuine, unwordy manner.

You say we should trust our emotions. I tend to shy away from that concept since my emotions sometimes lead me astray. But I think I have an idea of what you mean. Like trust your gut instincts? I started reading the book "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell, but did not finish it. That probably means I really need it bad! Maybe I'll give it another go.

Start a new thread if you want to discuss this subject, okay? I'll follow.

 

[Avonia]

Avonia, I'm just learning my way around this forum and would like to know how you get those bolded quote marks to show up? When I hit the "quote" button on a post, it gives me just your quote minus the previous quote. And if I hit MQ, nothing shows up for me.

I'll send you a PM.

 

[Avonia]

Start a new thread if you want to discuss this subject, okay? I'll follow.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7441873/

 

[solja247]

That video (Ted.com) was really interesting.

 

[AzA]

...That was the extent of my interaction with SDA scientists. Of course, any chance I get, I'd probably love to pick their brains, but that is not a driving desire in me right now.

Right now, I'm just interested in gabbing with fellow believers and sharing insights back and forth. It is fun just to play with ideas and see where they take us.

I hear you. Perhaps I should say instead "I can hear you now" because you said this early on and I'm remembering it now. Sorry to make you repeat yourself.

I can understand wanting to chill with peers for a while. One thing I find is that even if I drop out of debating a particular subject, if I'm called to come back to it, I always meet the right people to help move me forward -- not forward in debating, but forward in understanding and context.

I read your post about Knowledge-of-Religion again too. From one angle, you're right and we could define "religion" as "ideas related to the nature and personality and will and purposes of God." If we look around we see that religion is much more than that, but it's still a very Big Religion approach to take and my inner theologian is rather excited.

All our perceptions are mediated -- even our inner perceptions to some degree. This is not an evil; this is how we are made. When we try to describe our perceptions -- often describing for others rather than ourselves -- perhaps that's where our religions begin.

What can cause our difficulty is forgetting this: the description represents the perception which points to the reality. The description is not the reality; nor is the reality dependent on the description. The map is not the territory, the name is not the experience, and R-E-D is not this.

Again, I don't view this as an evil or deficiency.

In a very real sense, even if we define knowledge-of-religion in the broadest of ways, it is only ever the sum of what we or others have already described. It does not address the present time because we're all still experiencing the present. As as such it is limited to what has already gone; what IS remains to be perceived, described, or understood.

That's one of many reasons I'd suggest that Knowledge of Religion is not equivalent to Knowledge of God.

Another analogy: Let's say I have journalled for the last 16 years. If you read all those books, and all the descriptions therein, would that mean you have complete knowledge of me as I was in that timeframe? Would you have complete knowledge of me as I am now?

Hope you had a good week. Busy one, wasn't it?

 

[Laodicean]

Originally Posted by Laodicean

...That was the extent of my interaction with SDA scientists. Of course, any chance I get, I'd probably love to pick their brains, but that is not a driving desire in me right now.

Right now, I'm just interested in gabbing with fellow believers and sharing insights back and forth. It is fun just to play with ideas and see where they take us.
​

I hear you. Perhaps I should say instead "I can hear you now" because you said this early on and I'm remembering it now. Sorry to make you repeat yourself.

Aza, Aza, my friend, no need to be sorry. I'm just glad that you are willing to let me repeat myself.

I read your post about Knowledge-of-Religion again too. From one angle, you're right and we could define "religion" as "ideas related to the nature and personality and will and purposes of God." If we look around we see that religion is much more than that, but it's still a very Big Religion approach to take and my inner theologian is rather excited.

I guess we do make religion much more than that, but hopefully not to forget the big picture of "love justice, do mercy, and walk humbly with thy God." I suppose wrapped up in understanding justice, mercy and walking humbly with God come "the much more than that" but there is where religiosity crouches, waiting to pounce. Yet we can't just not go there. We have to make religiosity back off.

All our perceptions are mediated -- even our inner perceptions to some degree. This is not an evil; this is how we are made. When we try to describe our perceptions -- often describing for others rather than ourselves -- perhaps that's where our religions begin.

maybe religions form when people stop searching for additional light and think that what area of truths they happen to perceive...or misperceive...is all there is, and therefore you either "join me" or you are wrong?

What can cause our difficulty is forgetting this: the description represents the perception which points to the reality. The description is not the reality; nor is the reality dependent on the description. The map is not the territory, the name is not the experience, and R-E-D is not this.

ahh, you are becoming too deep for me. Let me chew on this some more.

Again, I don't view this as an evil or deficiency.

In a very real sense, even if we define knowledge-of-religion in the broadest of ways, it is only ever the sum of what we or others have already described. It does not address the present time because we're all still experiencing the present. As as such it is limited to what has already gone; what IS remains to be perceived, described, or understood.

Yikes. You leave me without words, Aza. I have to brood over this some more, too.

That's one of many reasons I'd suggest that Knowledge of Religion is not equivalent to Knowledge of God.

Another analogy: Let's say I have journalled for the last 16 years. If you read all those books, and all the descriptions therein, would that mean you have complete knowledge of me as I was in that timeframe? Would you have complete knowledge of me as I am now?

definitely not. But I see you are pushing me to be more rigorous in my statements. I should have said that KOR is the beginning of KOG. We could never have a complete knowledge of God. And here is where I think Avonia's "emotional intelligence" might come into play. What is the beginning of KOG? The fear of the Lord. Fear is an emotion. That's a start. And that fear should drive us to want to know more (KOR) about God so that love will become the overriding or at least counterbalancing emotion.

Avonia? Correct me where I'm off course, please.

Hope you had a good week. Busy one, wasn't it?

yes, as usual. Sometimes it is only the Sabbath that succeeds in bringing me to a screeching halt. Thankfully.

 

[Avonia]

The fear of the Lord. Fear is an emotion. That's a start. And that fear should drive us to want to know more (KOR) about God so that love will become the overriding or at least counterbalancing emotion.

That's an interesting way to say it - and you are on an interesting track.

The most primal fear is separation. And all fear separates. Love brings us toward unity with each other - with God.

A lower level of consciousness demands a higher level of fear for survival. A higher level of consciousness demands a lower level of fear for survival.

As you have hinted, our growth is about changing the mix.

 

[OldStudent]

As time goes on and more data comes to the table hope for the theory of evolution continues to wane. One of the best current summaries of the matter is work by Lee Strobel. He has produced both a book and a video, The Case for a Creator. You will likely find them fascinating. You will find there a catalog of disciplines and thread starters into the case for intelligent design.

Should SDA’s formulate a scientific theory of creation? There is no need for us to. Think “Sabbath” or “Sanctuary” and consider how useful sectarian concepts are in the general market. We just need to be conversant on what study is currently available. However, because of the pervasiveness of those of the evolutionary religion we have to dig some for data supporting intelligent design. Be aware, however, of the matters of micro vs. macro evolution. There is no contest with micro-evolution. Macro-evolution (the transformation of one species or life form to another) is where the contest is sharp. The presence of micro-evolution doesn't translate to macro-evolution.

Geologic formations are an important facet of evolution theory. Creationists see in geologic formations evidence of the Flood. A wealth of observations on the development of geological formations came from the Mount Saint Helen’s eruption. Things that in evolutionary theory require millions of years came about in hours to months following the eruption - all feasible in the context of the Flood. Search “mt st helens creation” and enjoy. Notice what happened when material from Mount Saint Helens was dated by a world class lab.

I have heard that the observation of the placement of life forms in the geologic layers as evidence of the more mobile species being able to climb higher before being overtaken by the surging flood rather than evidence of later, advanced development of those life forms. I haven’t pursued that one much.

My personal perspective sees that the Genesis record allows for a two stage creation. There may well have been a “Big Bang” when God’s desire was expressed and the general universe came in existence. Then some 6,000 years ago He came to this piece of real-estate we call Earth and developed it in the manner recorded in Genesis 1 and 2.

When Darwin formulated his theory one of the things taken for granted was the idea of “spontaneous generation.” The field of microbiology was in its infancy. The microscope was bringing little bugs to view but they hadn’t figured out where they came from or what they did. They just seemed to appear. The spontaneous appearance of these elemental forms of life was... well it just was. The work of Louis Pastuer in short order burst that bubble. Much effort has been expended to find some way around the origin of life barrier.

Subsequently we have learned that “simple” microscopic cells are anything but “simple.” With the discovery of DNA, RNA, genes, chromosomes, proteins, enzymes, functional and detailed structures within cells the idea of undirected construction is indeed becoming hard to maintain.

This leads to a question I have never seen anyone ask yet seems rather basic: Is life an innate property of matter (like gravity surrounds all mass) or an imparted property (as in a quality only God could give a structure)? That comes after defining what life is or what is evidence of its presence.

I will bring one more barrier to the table before ending this post. Look at sexual reproduction. Look at us and consider. Beyond the general complexity of human anatomy, physiology, and function consider that that has to be done twice in a contemporary time frame to generate the complimentary male/female pair. Then consider that it ALL has to work or NONE of it works. Now consider all the species that reproduce sexually. Consider the many various ways it gets gone among the species. Now add reproductive variations among plant life often including plant/animal synergy. Now compare evolution theory and intelligent design theory and ask, “Which is more sensible?” God said that each species was made by His design and was to reproduce after his kind. The evidence lends its approval to that notion.

There are so many more wonderful aspects of nature that bear evidence of intelligent design - even of a loving and wonderful God.

Some folks being on the idea that God did creation through the scheme of evolution. It's just that the evidence better fits the Genesis record.

One more note: consider the first angels message of Revelation 14:7: “...Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” When the Earth rings for the final time with Pentecost power these can be expected to be the underlying themes. That second clause rumbles with both creation and Sabbath language.

Do SDAs need to produce a Creation Theory? No. Honest inquiry and science is doing that on its own (Romans 1:20). We do well to acquire some familiarity with available information. I hope this helps a bit.

 

[sentipente]

I am trying to figure out what would be included in a theory of Creation beyond the singular moment in which Creation occurred.

 

[Laodicean]

I have heard that the observation of the placement of life forms in the geologic layers as evidence of the more mobile species being able to climb higher before being overtaken by the surging flood rather than evidence of later, advanced development of those life forms. I haven’t pursued that one much.

yes, I have heard that alternative, too. That is indeed another way to look at it. And maybe that's what happened with the dinosaurs.

Another way, I think, is to recognize that the violent, cataclysmic nature of a global flood would not preserve fossils from the antediluvian period. Instead antediluvian life forms are all buried at the bottom of the geological column, and from them is our present source of oil (called fossil fuel for a good reason). The lower layers of the geological column contain primarily marine life forms, and this fits a scenario in which, for more than a year, the entire earth was covered by water. But as the waters receded and life forms began to spread out again over a drying earth, succeeding higher layers would contain fossils of life forms more complex than trilobites and brachiopods, as a result of local floods.

Well, anyway, that's just one more way to look at the fossil record. It would need more study to be validated, though.

This leads to a question I have never seen anyone ask yet seems rather basic: Is life an innate property of matter (like gravity surrounds all mass) or an imparted property (as in a quality only God could give a structure)? That comes after defining what life is or what is evidence of its presence.

that's the puzzler. How do you go about demonstrating that life is or is not an innate property of matter. It sems pretty self evident that it is not an innate property of matter, but just saying that it is obvious is not a satisfactory answer to scientists. Maybe the genetic system might be one place to start to demonstrate that life is not an innate property of matter? This should make an interesting line of study.

Do SDAs need to produce a Creation Theory? No. Honest inquiry and science is doing that on its own (Romans 1:20). We do well to acquire some familiarity with available information. I hope this helps a bit.

I suppose you may be right that SDAs do not need to produce a Creation Theory. We have more important goals than fighting that battle. But it sure would be nice if we had at least good alternative answers in response to the current authoritarian interpretations of the data by mainstream science.

 

[Laodicean]

I am trying to figure out what would be included in a theory of Creation beyond the singular moment in which Creation occurred.

how about if creation is demonstrated scientifically by recognizing and detailing the characteristics of intelligence and how intelligence behaves? If the exact same identifiers of intelligence are found in nature, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the systems in nature have intelligence as their source.

For instance, if it can be demonstrated that intelligent human creation consists of a series of decisions, and if those decisions can be identified by a series of commands that start actions and stop actions in a way never observed to occur when nature is left to itself, then intelligent creation begins to qualify as a reasonable answer for the complexities in nature.

In other words, a scientific study of intelligence might be one place to start in developing a theory of creation.

 

[OldStudent]

I would hope that my child is not grounded into any religious view - but rather that religion helps ground my child in her knowledge of Creator. Just as I hope that all inquiry - including science - helps ground my child in her knowledge of Creator.

Because of this, I respect her path of inquiry. At the moment, because she is in an Adventist school, it is her view that God created in six literal days. I don't "correct" her by imposing my view. As she continues learning, she will reach her own conclusions. I have no preference whether her's are similar to mine. But I do have a preference that she is able to inquire openly.

Everything we say and do (or not) is formative of a childs worldview. At times we do directly address worldview in age appropriate manner. Be careful to not leave your child on her own for fear of "imposing" you view on her. Never forget you are the parent, you have experience and observed other lives and seen the trajectory some lines of thought and value take. Be involved and nudge with Bible or appropriate Godly resources. Try to keep your ear to the ground for information so you can balance what she is hearing. On some things you may be wise to hold a firm, reasoned line even to the exhaustion of both of you. One of my four was a wall banger, is still a wall banger, and life is not dealing so well with her. On the other hand, you may be suprised at some of the "advanced" conclusions she will come up with.

Forgive me for sounding like a fussy old grandpa - except I am a grandpa and getting fussier

 

[OldStudent]

One thing I didn't understand is your statement that KOG is not dependent on KOR. Is it possible to get to know what God is like without KOR, where KOR consists of ideas related to the nature and personality and will and purposes of God? I can see how KORiosity becomes an obstacle when these insights from KOR become a list of dos and don't by which we hammer ourselves and others into "place" whatever that place means to us in our religiosity.

I, too, like AzA's illustration. I too have reservations about how KOR can limit ones walk. KOR is usually associated with an organization which feeds us predigested material. But notice infants need something like that. Even later there can be a lot of wisdom to be gleaned from happenings of history. I find evidence of a lot of wisdom in the SDA Church Manual and I hold there are some fundamental flaws in it as well. We need to not be afraid to add our own discoveries of God like adding new layers to the pearl in the oyster.

 

[Avonia]

Forgive me for sounding like a fussy old grandpa - except I am a grandpa and getting fussier

I appreciate your voice here.

 

[sentipente]

how about if creation is demonstrated scientifically by recognizing and detailing the characteristics of intelligence and how intelligence behaves? If the exact same identifiers of intelligence are found in nature, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the systems in nature have intelligence as their source.

For instance, if it can be demonstrated that intelligent human creation consists of a series of decisions, and if those decisions can be identified by a series of commands that start actions and stop actions in a way never observed to occur when nature is left to itself, then intelligent creation begins to qualify as a reasonable answer for the complexities in nature.

In other words, a scientific study of intelligence might be one place to start in developing a theory of creation.

That has already been demonstrated in modern science. Science has already shown that nothing from nothing comes and that what is produced can never be greater than that what produced it. Intelligence and creative power are accepted realities.

 

[Laodicean]

That has already been demonstrated in modern science. Science has already shown that nothing from nothing comes and that what is produced can never be greater than that what produced it. Intelligence and creative power are accepted realities.

Sentipente, I agree with you that intelligence and creative power are accepted realities...in humans and higher life forms. What is not accepted by some is that the same characteristics of intelligence and creativity can also be observed in nature. I think that if the consistent characteristics of intelligence are first identified, and if those same distinctive qualities can be demonstrated to be also in nature, then it should be logical to conclude intelligence as the origin of the natural world.

We could ask: What are the identifying characteristics of a decision? Can all decisions be identified by the same, consistent, basic set of characteristics? For instance, when creating an item, is it possible to clearly recognize, identify, and label a decision to start an action and a decision to stop an action? And does an accumulation of these start-stop commands result in bringing a new item into existence?

If commands/decisions can be recognized as belonging strictly to intelligence, and that the physical world reflects commands to start and stop actions that normally would not start or stop on their own, then it would be reasonable to conclude that intelligence would have to be the only source for the complex systems observed in nature.

Where the rubber meets the road would be to actually demonstrate, rigorously, the consistent hallmarks of intelligence, then demonstrate that physics, when left to itself, does not ever, on its own, build on a series of start-stop actions beyond what it is observed to normally achieve; that only outside intervention could take chemical reactions to a level higher than their basic, observed abilities.

Well, anyway, that's one idea of how to approach creation theory scientifically. I'm sure there are other ways to develop it, too.

 

[Avonia]

Where the rubber meets the road would be to actually demonstrate, rigorously, the consistent hallmarks of intelligence, then demonstrate that physics, when left to itself, does not ever, on its own, build on a series of start-stop actions beyond what it is observed to normally achieve; that only outside intervention could take chemical reactions to a level higher than their basic, observed abilities.

And yet, the irony is that this intelligence is not self aware enough to agree on identity. For example, who are you?

 

[Laodicean]

And yet, the irony is that this intelligence is not self aware enough to agree on identity. For example, who are you?

identity belongs to another field -- philosophy, religion, belief. The establishing of rigorous evidence for intelligence, as reflected in the complexities of nature, would be the raw science. At this level, creation theory should be acceptable as pure science and not religion.

 

[Avonia]

identity belongs to another field -- philosophy, religion, belief.

You may find the question intriguing if you ponder it a bit. Or not.

 

[sentipente]

identity belongs to another field -- philosophy, religion, belief.

Identity is inherent in every field. My identity is an essential aspect of my observations. I observe what I observe precisely because I am not someone else.