Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by Eddie.
A Servant: I am a 25 year old medical student at Loma Linda currently, and would like to share my personal experience regarding Sean’s thesis–that the failure of many Adventist institutions to provide intellectually compelling reasons for faith in the Bible and in our Bible-based Adventist doctrines has made a major contribution to attrition of “young people†from the Adventist Church.
Nice testimony! I encourage you to reconsider your career and become a biology professor in a SDA college or university, where you can more effectively fight in the front-line trenches of the battle between good and evil. After all, mainstream evolutionary theories are creeping into our schools and are a big reason why so many people are leaving the church. There is a crucial shortage of SDAs who aspire to become biology professors and even fewer who, like you, are actually fit for denominational employment, so there is a much, much, much greater need for biology professors in our schools than for physicians in our hospitals.
As a biology professor you will you have many, many, many more opportunities to confront the viral influence of Darwinism and staunch the hemmoraging of young people from the church than you ever will as a mere physician. As you have observed first-hand, young people are eager to learn the truth about the scientific evidence for creationism. Rather than witnessing to one at a time in a clinical practice, you can witness to dozens if not hundreds of young people at a time in the classroom, and individually in your office during advising sessions. Plus you’ll have more free time to minister to young people during extracurricular activities. Just think of the possibilities! Sounds exciting, eh?
But if you choose to become a biology professor, be aware that you’ll earn far less income than you would as a physician. You’ll probably earn even less than a first-grade teacher in our denominational schools, but that’s okay because professors are expected to sacrifice more than any other denominational employee. I doubt that you’ll have a problem with that. Surely you would rather have Jesus than silver or gold, and would rather be His than have riches untold.
Also be aware that professors tend to be liberal, especially biology professors, which means that you will likely be viewed with suspicion by your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. But naturally there are ways in which you can assuage any such suspicion. For example, you can conduct creationist research with students or at least post comments in support of creationism on creationist websites. You can also post your syllabi, lecture notes, and videos of your lectrues online so the whole world can see that you have nothing to hide.
I sincerely hope that you will seriously consider this suggestion, and encourage your young friends there to also consider an alternative career as a biology professor. Again, there is a great need for devout SDA biology professors. May God bless you in your ministry.
Table of Contents
Eddie Also Commented
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Theistic evolution certainly destroys faith in the Bible for some. I am not a theistic evolutionist. Professor Kent is not a theistic evolutionist. We are NOT defending theistic evolution. But whether you like it or not, there are millions of others who accept theistic evolution AND maintain their faith in the Bible. So why offend them by insisting over and over and over again that it is the “worst form of infidelity”? It doesn’t seem like a Christ-like thing to do.
For some reason you have repeatedly avoided my question in two different threads about whether you accept Ellen White’s statement that the rocks (not just life) of the Earth are only about 6,000 years old. Is it not inconsistent to (1) accept Ellen White’s statement that theistic evolution is the “worst form of infidelity” and (2) reject her unambiguous statement in the same passage that the “earth itself” is only about 6,000 years old? You are eager to criticize Professor Kent for not believing statement #1 but you have yet to affirm your belief in statement #2.
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
BobRyan: Kent – your argument that if enough people sign up for it then it must make sense – is the classic “ad populum†logical fallacy.
Professor Kent never endorsed that position.
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
BobRyan: Quoting Ellen White, with emphases added: “Infidel GEOLOGISTS claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the Bible record, because of those things which are to them evidences from THE EARTH ITSELF, that the world has existed tens of thousands of years.”
BobRyan: Yes – because when Ellen White refers to “World†and to “other Worlds†she is always talking about a planet with life on it.
But when she talks about “planets†the context determines whether or not she means a planet with life on it or a planet that does not have life on it.
Bob, she specifically referred to “geologists”–not biologists. And then she specifically referred to “evidences from the earth itself”–not “evidences for life on earth.” It seems clear to me from the context of her language that Ellen White was a young earth creationist (YEC), not a young life creationist (YLC).
I’m trying to understand how you, Sean and others here at Educate Truth accept Ellen White’s literal interpretation of Genesis 1 but disagree with her on the age of the planet’s rocks. Seems a bit inconsistent.
Recent Comments by Eddie
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
SDA Bio Prof: The Bible makes multiple falsifiable prophecies about Nebuchadnezzar conquering Egypt, yet history never records it happening. Does this mean the Bible is effectively falsified?
Sean Pitman: Egyptians had a strong tendency not to record their losses… only their victories.
Sean, does that mean YOU personally believe Babylon conquered Egypt, just as predicted by two prophets? In the absence of any empirical evidence? If the Egyptians didn’t record their losses, why wouldn’t the Babylonians have recorded such a stunning victory?
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Holly Pham: One of the things that has always concerned me is that, according to what I’ve read, birds and reptiles have completely different forms of respiratory systems (flow-through vs. bellows) How is this explained by evolutionists?
Evidence from the vertebrae of non-avian theropod dinosaurs suggests that they, too, possessed unidirectional flow-through ventilation of the lungs. So, according to evolutionary theory, it evolved first in “primitive” non-avian theropods rather than in birds, and comprises one of many shared derived characters supposedly linking birds with more “advanced” theropods. However, I don’t think there is any evidence or even a hypothesis for a step-by-step process of HOW it evolved. Here is a reference:
http://www.ohio.edu/people/ridgely/OconnorClaessensairsacs.pdf
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
@Bob Helm: Bob, if you send me an e-mail at sdabioprof2@gmail.com I will send you a pdf file of a 1991 article published by Chatterjee in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 332:277-342, titled “Cranial anatomy and relationships of a new Triassic bird from Texas.”
Curiously his description is based only on cranial anatomy. I don’t think he ever published an analysis of its postcranial anatomy.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
David Read: Eddie, ecological zonation will yield the same basic order that you’re pointing to: invertebrates appear before vertebrates; fish appear before amphibians; amphibians appear before reptiles; reptiles appear before mammals; reptiles appear before birds, etc.
It could, and it’s the best creationist explanation, but it doesn’t explain why flowering plants were absent from lowland forests. Or why so many land plants appeared before mangroves, which today occur strictly in the intertidal zone. Or why no pre-flood humans have been found. Or, if Sean is correct that the flood ended at the K-T boundary, why many modern groups of birds and mammals (including marine mammals) which first appear during the Tertiary were not buried by the flood.
David Read: The fact that something appears before something else in the fossil record is not proof than anything evolved into anything else.
True.
David Read: You seem to be complaining that God has not made the fossil evidence compulsory, i.e., so clear that no reasonable person can possibly doubt it. And if God hasn’t made the evidence skeptic-proof, then the skeptic is God’s fault, God is responsible for the skeptic.
I’m not complaining. I’m merely pointing out that the evidence can be interpreted in different ways by honest people. And I’m relieved to see that even you don’t think the evidence is crystal clear.
David Read: Only people of faith can be saved, that is, only people who are willing to trust God and put away doubts can be saved.
I agree.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
David Read: Those tracks are so obviously bird tracks that the fact that some scientists want to assign them to “birdlike theropods” is itself a very useful teaching tool as to how the model creates the data.
David Read: That the model actually creates the data is one of the hardest concepts to get across, not only to lay people but even to the scientists themselves.
How does the model affect the data? Data don’t change and they shouldn’t change. It’s the interpretation, not the data, that is affected by the model.
