Two Adventist Universities Promote Six-Day Creation

By Sean Pitman

The Seventh-day Adventist Church officially holds, as a foundational empirical truth, that God really did create all life on this planet in just six literal days… and then rested on the seventh-day from his creative work with this planet, creating a holy Sabbath day for us to rest from all of our secular activities and usual routines of the week – to step aside and enjoy His works of nature and remember Him as our Creator.   This original week has been the model of all subsequent weeks on this planet and appears to be imprinted in our very DNA (Link).  The very name “Seventh-day Adventist” is based on this fundamental belief regarding the historically literal nature of the Genesis account of origins.  Our church has also upheld the idea that God’s works are evident in nature, showing the very Signature and glory of God.  As David pointed out:

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard… I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. (Psalms 19:1-3 and Psalms 139:14)

Yet, the teachings of modern evolutionary scientists have made significant inroads into our church schools.  The majority of scientists in some of our schools, like La Sierra University, have long been teaching our young people that Neo-Darwinism is not just a popular competing naturalistic theory inimical to the Adventist perspective on origins, but that it is in fact the true story of origins – that life really has existed and evolved on this planet, in a Darwinian manner, over hundreds of millions of years of time.  And, LSU is not alone.  Several of our “Adventist” schools have started promoting the perspective of popular naturalistic science to one degree or another contrary to the historic Adventist position on origins.  Of course, if accepted as true, this mainstream scientific perspective would effectively undermine key fundamental beliefs of historic Adventism – and even Christianity at large.

Our church leadership seems to recognize this potentiality and has tried to be clear with regard to what it expects from the professors in our schools.  The General Conference Executive Committee at the 2004 Annual Council had asked all professors in SDA schools to also present the SDA perspective on origins in all classrooms:

We call on all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the church’s position on origins. We, along with Seventh-day Adventist parents, expect students to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world.

The problem is that this directive has been largely if not entirely ignored by several of our schools.  However, at least two of our schools have taken this directive very seriously.  Southern Adventist University and Southwestern Adventist University appear to be among the most active of all of our schools in the promotion of the concepts of Biblical creation as a form of science where the Signature of God can be recognized within nature as well as within His written Word  In this effort, they should be actively supported and highly commended as they are working against significant odds and very strong opposing forces – even from within our own school system.

SAU has been very public, especially in its biology department, in the promotion of God’s design in nature.  The halls of the biology department are decorated with murals depicting strong evidences for design behind the complexity and intricacy of living biological machines.  For example, pictured to the right is Dr. Keith Snyder, department chair, pointing to one of the illustrations in the hallways of the biology department that highlighs the amazing intricacy, informational complexity, and intelligent design necessary to produce the biomachines within a single human cell.  The science professors at SAU love to explain these evidences to students and visitors alike who ask about the meaning of the paintings on their walls.

Beyond this, SAU has been very explicit in its response to the efforts of many to promote Darwinian thinking and other popular purely naturalistic views of science within our school system.  As a university, consider a few representative statments from their numerous affirmations and denials regarding their position on origins:

We affirm the supernatural creation of a perfect and good world in six, consecutive, contiguous, literal, 24-hour days (Gen 1; Ex 20:11) and that creation was complete at the end of creation week (Gen 2:1-2).

We deny that the creation story is parable, saga, metaphor, myth, or any other literary category insofar as they are construed as mutually exclusive to a literal and historical account.

We deny any other theory of origins involving millions of years for the development of life, and the evolution of humans from non-human primates as taught in natural evolution, theistic evolution, and progressive creation.

We deny the view that a literal and historical account of Gen 1-11 is not essential to the belief system of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

We deny that death was part of God’s original creation or that it will be part of God’s new creation.

We deny that the biblical flood was only local or that the covering of the high mountains only involved water in a solid state.

Read More…

Along these same lines, SWAU is keeping right up with SAU in support of the Adventist perspective on origins.  At SWAU Drs. Suzanne Phillips and Arthur Chadwick, along with the other science faculty, have been very active in promoting the science behind the detection of God’s Signature in nature in their classes. Dr. Chadwick, in particular, has also been a strong leader in the promotion of the Biblical concept of origins in his lectures on geology and biology and during his field trips to excavate dinosaur fossils in Wyoming.  He has published many articles explaining the recent catastrophic origin of much of the fossil record and geologic column and of the very limited creative potential of random mutations and natural selection.  He, and many of the other professors at SWAU have been a source of great encouragement and support for the faith of their students and for the church at large.

Consider also the mission statement of SWAU’s Earth History Research Center:

The Earth History Research Center is a non-profit, non-sectarian organization of active scientists. Our mission is to develop a scientifically credible view of earth history consistent with scripture, to conduct scientific research related to this goal and to promote our view through publication and education. (Link)

In short, if truly Adventist education is important to you, if you want yourself or your children to be taught the modern evolutionary theory as well as the truly Biblical perspective on origins from scientists as well as theologians who actually believe what the Bible says as it reads, if you want yourself or your children to be well-educated in what mainstream evolution is all about and to be given something more that goes beyond what is taught as the gospel truth in public schools, if you want yourself or your children to be given more information to consider than anyone will get who goes through public school education, if you want to know the reasons why Darwinian arguments are not the most scientifically rational arguments available, reasons showing the clear evidence for very high-level intelligence and design behind the informational complexity of living things and the universe at large, reasons strongly supporting the recent and rapid catastrophic origin of the fossil record and much of the geologic column, strongly consider attending or sending your children to Southern Adventist University or Southwestern Adventist University.

 

Students uncovering and mapping dinosaur bones in Wyoming with Dr. Chadwick

 

Share on Facebook0Pin on Pinterest1Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+2Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

67 thoughts on “Two Adventist Universities Promote Six-Day Creation

  1. How much were you paid by the marketing offices of Southern and Southwest to write this? To say that they are the only schools which teach the Adventist position on origins is preposterous.




    0
    View Comment
    • @PUC Student:

      I didn’t say that SAU and SWAU were the only schools in our school system actively promoting the Adventist position on origins from a scientific perspective. What I said is that they are the most prominent and active among those that do. As far as I’m aware, neither SAU nor SWAU will hire any professor of science or religion who is not fully supportive of the Adventist perspective on origins and other fundamental issues in the church. Few other schools in our school system can say the same thing…

      Now, although I know of science professors at PUC who downplay the worldwide nature of the Noachian Flood and the recent nature of the creation of life on this planet, there is a good chance that I am simply ignorant of all that PUC is doing, as an overall institution, to promote the science behind the Adventist perspective on origins. I would love to have access to this information. If you have such information in the form of written statements from the science department or individual professors or even a video clip to this effect, I would love to promote PUC as well… for free! 😉

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
      • @Sean Pitman: I attended AU where it was common knowledge in the 1980’s that many professors were evolutionists. I was a pagan at the time and didn’t care. Now I do quite strongly.

        As for PUC, I do not have any knowledge of their evolution stance. I do have a daughter attending who had a Psychology Professor openly scoffing at SDA teaching on homosexuality and scoffing at parents who do not like his views. He in my view is playing the part of a “Jesuit confessor” [edit]
        Unfortunately our SDA schools are plagued. Fortunately, I take it as a sign of the times and Jesus’ coming is fast approaching.




        0
        View Comment
      • @Sean Pitman:

        I could give you copies of syllabi, class recordings and slide print outs that were handed out, but that would be unethical since it is not my own work.

        I could not honestly tell you that every professor at PUC is “fully supportive” of the “Adventist perspective on origins” since I have not taken classes from every science professor at my school.

        What I can tell you is that in EVERY class I have taken at PUC, my professors have done nothing but affirm my faith, including my belief in creation week in the recent (if you call thousands of years that…) past.

        I would note that one of Adventism’s most prolific defenders of a literal creation week, Earl Aagaard, only recently retired from PUC. During his tenure, he was intimately involved in hiring decisions at the biology department. I think his influence is still felt to a large extent through the hiring decisions that he took part in.




        0
        View Comment
        • @PUC Student:

          I’ve personally discussed these things with Dr. Earl Aagaard a few times. He has had his concerns about PUC as well as LSU… but I’ll let you ask him yourself what these concerns were/are.

          As far as providing information to effectively promote PUC’s position on Biblical creation, there are many things you can do that would be both legal and would not get you in any trouble at your school. All you have to do is ask for permission, from your teachers or the school administration, to present key elements of lectures, lecture materials, or individual statements as to the position of PUC’s science and/or religion faculty on the issue of origins in our church.

          Sean Pitman
          http://www.DetectingDesign.com




          0
          View Comment
    • @PUC Student: As a recent graduate of PUC, I strongly disagree with your assertion. Please provide proof to the contrary. If there’s nothing to hide, then providing it in any form should not be a problem 😉




      0
      View Comment
  2. Which other of our schools support and teach creation as a “FACT” –and give true scientific evidence for it–of which there are many such FACTS. And which one of our other schools show evolution as a worldly “THEORY”–and give the strong scientific evidences showing the weaknesses in it–of which there are many you may be totally unaware of.

    And don’t just jump to the conclusion that “money” changed hands to make these schools “look good.” I happen to have several grandchildren who either have attended one of these schools or are even now attending it as well as a daughter who is working on her Masters there.

    In addition to that we frequently have groups of other young people attending there here in our home for visits and a good “home cooked meal”. We also have faculty members who are good friends so I believe we have pretty good “first hand knowledge” of what is being taught there. What Sean wrote was accurate.

    Be careful how you judge, young friend! Words CAN sometimes come back to “bite” at times. It may not have happened to you yet but sooner or later it will and the repercussion can often be quite unpleasant! (Trust me, at 87 years of age, I’ve “been around the block” a few times and learned some of these lessons the hard way!)




    0
    View Comment
  3. “How much were you paid by the marketing offices of Southern…”

    Actually SAU is blessed with unprecedented demand for seats in their classrooms and in the near future may even be forced to restrict enrollment.

    “Southern” boldly embraces the historic SDA position on origins.




    0
    View Comment
    • @Charles:

      Sure, but if growth is how you measure success, you should know that among Adventist universities, Washington Adventist University had the most growth, La Sierra second and PUC third going into this school year. Our Campus Chronicle at PUC also reported that our enrollment increased between Fall and Winter quarter.

      This isn’t to bash Southern or SWAU. I support all of our Adventist universities including Southern, SWAU, WAU, La Sierra, PUC and the others.




      0
      View Comment
  4. It is so nice to hear of the “other” side of things. Thank you Sean for this positive information. It is good to know that there are some of our schools have not “bowed the knee to Baal”!

    As for the “PUC student”, one day perhaps the wetness behind your ears will dry and you will not be so skeptical. And I would add for you to prove your “preposterous” statement.




    0
    View Comment
  5. As a life-long SDA, I always assumed my own children would attend an SDA college. However, they would like to stay in-state, and I refuse to pay over $100,000 (times 3 kids) to an Adventist school to teach them that Creation is a myth, so we have toured non-Adventist Christian universities in CA, such as Biola and CalBaptist. We are extremely pleased with their approach to Creationism and will be sending our children there. Unfortunately they will miss out on the benefits of an truly Adventist education, but I don’t want to pay a school to undo all that we have taught them at home about the inerrancy of the Bible. Perhaps after a couple years at an in-state school they will transfer to SAU.




    0
    View Comment
    • @Christine:
      Christine: You say you don’t want one of our schools to “undo” what you have taught your children. May I say that sending your children to Biola or CalBaptist could definitely undo the state of the dead, the Sabbath, and other of our fundamental doctrines that we all hold so dear as true SDA’s. The secret rapture theory is one of the major belief’s of the Baptist’s. All of us sit at the feet of someone we look up to whether a pastor or teacher, and can be deceived. Our children do not have the experience that a more “seasoned” believer may have to question the teachings of one of these “mentors”. We are living in a time of earths history where we can’t afford to lose our children to the other side whether from evolution or the Sabbath. Remember the Sabbath and State of the Dead will be the two greatest issues in the end times. As “spiritual” as a school may seem and going along with the literal six day creation, remember how Eve was deceived so subtly. It would be like throwing little lambs to the wolves that are in sheeps clothing. If I had it to do all over again, I would send my kids to a Community College for two years then to one of our schools.

      We will be praying for you.




      0
      View Comment
  6. Praise God for faithful professors! There are others at different Adventist campuses as well, so we can pray that the tide will turn in leadership at individual schools.




    0
    View Comment
  7. Thanks Sean for the article. It was refreshing to know that we still have strong instructors that will stay true.

    Folks, if you want things to change support those schools that are strong in the faith and dry up your support for those who go contrary to Biblical perspectives. Money talks.

    Bill




    0
    View Comment
  8. if you want yourself or your children to be well-educated in what mainstream evolution is all about and to be given something more that goes beyond what is taught as the gospel truth in public schools, you want yourself or your children to be given more information to consider than anyone will get who goes through public school education, if you want to know the reasons why Darwinian arguments are not the most scientifically rational arguments available, reasons showing the clear evidence for very high-level intelligence and design behind the informational complexity of living things and the universe at large, reasons strongly supporting the recent and rapid catastrophic origin of the fossil record and much of the geologic column, strongly consider attending or sending your children to Southern Adventist University or Southwestern Adventist University.

    I am very happy to see SAU and SWAU getting some of the spotlight regarding their willingness to step up and be counted on the side of good science and sound Bible doctrine when it comes to this issue.

    I strongly believe there are other SDA universities and colleges that could promote their science and religion program in that way but have not chosen to do so – perhaps in keeping with Dan Jackson’s theme of not letting any bad news about sister institutions leak out to the constituency, or due to apathy supposing that nobody is taking evolutionism seriously so no need to make this point with SDAs as if it were a “distinctive”.

    Yet LSU and perhaps others are challenging those assumptions and creating the need for our colleges and universities to break their code of silence on this subject.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  9. Tom Harebottle: @Sean Pitman: I attended AU where it was common knowledge in the 1980′s that many professors were evolutionists. I was a pagan at the time and didn’t care. Now I do quite strongly.As for PUC, I do not have any knowledge of their evolution stance. I do have a daughter attending who had a Psychology Professor openly scoffing at SDA teaching on homosexuality and scoffing at parents who do not like his views. He in my view is playing the part of a “Jesuit confessor” [edit]. Fortunately, I take it as a sign of the times and Jesus’ coming is fast approaching.

    Was this Psychology professor named Aubyn Fulton? He is a very public supporter of “gay marriage” and other heresies. Look on his personal website and you will see some of his favorite movies are “Kill Bill 1 & 2, besides other questionable choices.

    And we wonder why are SDA institutions are being destoyed?




    0
    View Comment
  10. PUC Student: How much were you paid by the marketing offices of Southern and Southwest to write this? To say that they are the only schools which teach the Adventist position on origins is preposterous.

    Do you have any information that Sean was paid for this article? If you do, please reveal it to us, so that it may be evaluated. If not, I would suggest that you refrain from you biased, prejudiced opinions against Sean and those who are stating the truth on this website.




    0
    View Comment
  11. PUC Student: @Sean Pitman:

    I could give you copies of syllabi, class recordings and slide print outs that were handed out, but that would be unethical since it is not my own work.

    I could not honestly tell you that every professor at PUC is “fully supportive” of the “Adventist perspective on origins” since I have not taken classes from every science professor at my school.

    What I can tell you is that in EVERY class I have taken at PUC, my professors have done nothing but affirm my faith, including my belief in creation week

    I for one am glad to hear someone say that about PUC. Apparently the above is coming from someone attending LSU not PUC – is that right?

    In any case – here is an outsider’s view of PUC as told by someone that thought they were going to PUC to defend evolutionism against people at PUC that believe in a real 7 day week at Creation in Genesis 1-2 only about 10,000 years ago.

    In 2006, Wes Elsberry and I were invited to come to PUC and debate evolution for part of a student-organized speaker series. We were initially hesitant, since we are generally skeptical of debating creationists. However, after some discussion with the organizers, we grudgingly signed up, since it seemed like there was some chance for a reasonable discussion rather than just a Gish-gallop debate. Wes and I drove up to PUC – but, aware of the YECiness of Adventists, we went in as armed to the teeth as academics can be, with huge powerpoint files solely devoted to putting evidence for the age of the earth and common ancestry as bluntly and non-deniably as possible. When I spoke, I popped the slides up one-by-one and used the basic refrain, “Here are the hard facts. If this evidence has been hidden from you before now by your teachers and professors, you should ask yourself why.” It was pretty much a go-in-with-blazing-guns strategy.
    However, as the discussion ensued, the students, and some of the professors, had some news for me. “You’ve got us all wrong,” they said. “We’re not all old-fashioned young-earth creationists and anti-evolutionists here, that’s an old stereotype about Adventists.” (Note: this is not a direct quote, rather it is just the gist of what I remember hearing.) Subsequent discussion indicated that many of the students & profs were reasonably well-informed about evolution and not really skeptical of it. After some interesting chats, Wes and I drove home, shaking our heads and commenting that if Seventh Day Adventists were becoming OK with evolution, we should keep our eyes open for flying pigs and freezing hells.
    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/11/seventh-day-adv.html#more

    So here is the question – how is it that the “Panda’s Thumb” guys did not leave with the impression that they were in a debate with creationists – when they admit that going in to PUC that is exactly what they were expecting?

    I suggest you read their comments before attempting to guess at an answer.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  12. The objective critical reader “Would have expected” the “best outcome” to be that the Panda’s Thumb guys would come away from that debate with the comment

    Subsequent discussion indicated that many of the students & profs were reasonably well-informed about evolution and were highly skeptical of it citing example after example where evolutionists have made sweeping claims by merely assuming and wildly extrapolating the salient point of the argument rather than proving the evolutionist claim with observations in nature.

    Oh well – maybe PUC was just having “a bad day”??

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  13. Wayne Loomer: If I had it to do all over again, I would send my kids to a Community College for two years then to one of our schools.

    Well the good news is that we do have colleges and Universities that promote the teachings of the Adventist church and that take a strong stand for real observable science, and no appeal to blind faith evolutionism.

    Having said that – I did send my two children to a local University for their degrees in the engineering sciences. ( I figured if I had to go through all that physics and calculus – it would not hurt my children to be exposed to it.)

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  14. It was a joy to listen to Dr. Art Chadwick from SWAU present 3 different lectures at Monterey Bay Academy this weekend. Besides the wonderful field work and research he is doing and his professor duties at SWAU he loves presenting and sharing the truths of Creation to younger people. I can tell you first hand as a academy teacher many of our young students are wondering what the big deal is concerning the Creation/Evolution debate. Why does it matter? But, at the least, here at MBA, we are trying very hard to educate as to the importance of having a foundation of Adventism in Creation and thus preparing them for the reality also of Christ’s very soon return. I would also encourage our Adventist academies to be very intentional about sharing this critical fundamental belief with their students including inviting guest lecturers to share and present. I know for a fact Dr. Chadwick would love to when time permits.




    0
    View Comment
  15. “PUC student”: “Sure, but if growth is how you measure success, you should know…”

    I was not trying to measure success. I was simply rebutting your insinuation that SAU needs to promote themselves by paying for biased reporting.




    0
    View Comment
  16. Sean, I’m so glad to hear you highlight what has gone well in the area of Science in the Adventist Universities! At this point this sort of promotion of those who teach Biblically may do as much good, if not more, as exposing error (and I’m certainly not opposed to exposing error).




    0
    View Comment
  17. Tom Harebottle: @Holly Pham: Yes, that’s his name. I will have to check out this website. What you say, doesn’t surprise me.

    Yes, please check out this SDA fraud. I once asked a former PUC student, who knew Fulton, why guys like him and Alexander Carpenter are actually hired by PUC. They stated that because of the low salary, that’s all they can get and they will take virtually anyone who will work there.




    0
    View Comment
  18. Holly Pham: Was this Psychology professor named Aubyn Fulton? He is a very public supporter of “gay marriage” and other heresies. Look on his personal website and you will see some of his favorite movies are “Kill Bill 1 & 2, besides other questionable choices. And we wonder why are SDA institutions are being destoyed?

    @Tom Harebottle, Shane censored your other comments and my reply to them, but you’re absolutely correct about those too!




    0
    View Comment
  19. So happy to hear that there are still professors who are courageous enough to stand for the truth despite the ridicule of their worldly ‘peers’. I had begun to think that the whole of our SDA higher education community had been ravaged by evolution and other heresies in the science and religion depts.

    I think the key to the whole mess is the hiring/firing practices of the schools. In order to correct it, I feel that all of the teaching staff and administrators of all our colleges and universities (and for that matter, the academies) should be examined for their loyalty to SDA beliefs. If they cannot support the true SDA doctrine, having them in the position to teach young minds is an opportunity for heresy to spread like wildfire in our church and they should immediately be fired.

    A good example of the dangers of allowing them to remain is the psychology prof that Holly has been speaking about. The minute he announced that he didn’t agree with the Bible (and therefore SDA) stance on homosexuality, he should have been fired. I don’t care who his friends are or how much tenure he had, he had no business in an SDA classroom scoffing at SDA standards and doctrine.

    But I don’t think the examinations should stop there. Unfortunately, a lot of this has been allowed to go on for so long because the GC itself has been decimated by unbelieving and world-loving ministers. Ministers, as much or more than teachers and professors, need to be tested for soundness. If they don’t agree with the church’s doctrine, they shouldn’t be leading out in any way, shape, or form. Allowing them to do so just opens the door for them to lead people astray. Again, they should be fired.

    I know, somebody is going to come back with a lecture on Christian love; but sometimes, in order to stop the spread of sin, tough measures must be taken. When you think about it, how much do we really love the innocent sheep of the church when we allow the wolves to remain? Think about this, too: Jesus drove the cheats and moneychangers out of the temple. If we are to follow His example, why aren’t we doing the same?




    0
    View Comment
  20. @Faith, I agree with you about Aubyn Fulton, Alexander Carpenter, and numerous others at PUC. They are allowed to infest and infect the students with their secular and even anti-biblical beliefs, and nobody seems to care, especially the administration, staff, and Board members.

    Do the parents know about these things? I don’t know, but if they do,and they don’t care either, we are in greater trouble than I could imagine.




    0
    View Comment
  21. Sean wrote……

    “This original week has been the model of all subsequent weeks on this planet and appears to be imprinted in our very DNA (Link). The very name “Seventh-day Adventist” is based on this fundamental belief regarding the historically literal nature of the Genesis account of origins.”

    A weekly cycle is not “imprinted in our very DNA.”

    The moral law is not natural law, even though they work together in a perfect environment. The command to “remember” is important precisely because of this truth.

    Sin is transgression of the moral law. And while it is true, that some violations of the natural law will necessarily bring a penalty, it is equally true that in many cases, a violation of moral law has no penalty except as God enforces it.

    There is no natural law penalty for a violation of the Sabbath commandment. Nor for adultery, for that matter, except when some aspect of the natural law is included.

    A person who smokes may get cancer as a natural law penalty. But this is not the full extent of his punishment. He must eventually answer to God for violating God’s authority for abuse of his body that ultimately belongs to God.

    So, people can break the Sabbath for thousands of years with no natural law ill effect. Neither is it written on their DNA that they are doing something wrong.

    I am not sure what Sean means by his comment. But if he means what I think he means, then I don’t agree.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  22. Bill

    I don’t think Sean meant that the Sabbath is imprinted on our DNA but a weekly cycle. Life is lived in many various rhythms. It could be argued that our days, months, and years are rhythms induced by planetary (ect) cycles. But there is no such cycle for the week. It came to us as a gift from God. I sense the cycle and I honor the true Sabbath as a part of it. I also work on Sunday, and keep the true Sabbath according to the commandment. While I observe the week from a sense of the rhythm, I honor the Sabbath in obedience to my Creator. And it is a joy that would distress me greatly to lose.




    0
    View Comment
  23. Charles said…..

    “While I observe the week from a sense of the rhythm,….”

    I submit, Charles, that if we kept a six day week, or an eight day week for a couple thousand years, no one would feel out of sorts because it was not a 7 day week.

    I know France tried a 10 day week, but it was so radical from the practiced norm, no one could really adjust.

    But, if it was enforced long enough, I still think no one would really feel out of sorts because of it. We could make a three week month of 10 days.

    The 7 day week cycle is God ordained by way of moral law. all true believers have kept it for 6,000 years. Civil society continues to observe it because to change it would cause major confusion.

    It took considerable time for Christians to abandon the Sabbath for Sunday. But it was done. And once done, it easily remained intact for hundreds of years until this very day. And no Sunday keeping Christian feels uneasy about it, unless and until they are persuaded from the bible it is the wrong day.

    At any rate, I am not persuaded that the human family could not change the weekly cycle to 6 days, or 8 days or another number and eventually feel at ease about it. It doesn’t seem likely we will find out by experience.

    I think Sean thinks he can somehow “prove” a creation week by science. And I don’t agree. He may back himself into a corner he can not get out of.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  24. Thank you guys so much for posting these refreshing truths about some of our schools who are working hard to do God’s business! I think we absolutely MUST have this continued accountability and free/open press statement about what’s taking place in our SDA Schools these days (and at all times). We never can allow Satan to have an open back door right into our midst by making silent assumptions about the faithfulness of the teaching activities in our schools, for sake of professed name only. God says “BE SOBER, BE VIGILANT, because your adversary the Devil goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8). Even an effective pagan government must have proper checks and balances. How much more the church of God who must “…earnestly content for the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3,4)? Satan loves to attack and kill the little ones before they can stand for doing God’s work. He tried with Moses and Christ! Shall he not as surely do so to us? Of course! We have the warnings all throughout Scripture to be on the lookout and the watch for false teachers and false prophets!! We MUST all be accountable, and hold accountable, that Bible truth may be taught and educated in our schools that were so designed for just such a purpose. The History of God’s church at large and the History of our people DEMAND accountability and transparency in all these matters!! Let’s hold accountable all our schools and fortify the willing ones for the task of proclaiming the truth. Thank you for this article and this work. Let’s make known when some are doing what they should and reprimand and censure those who are making groves to Satan under Israel’s banner!




    0
    View Comment
  25. Bill

    I think we are pretty much on the same page. There is no way to know if the seven-day cycle could be broken without demonstrating it. I do know that it is engrained within me and that is the best evidence I have.

    As to proving creation? I think the “scientific model” does work in proving it. As “brilliant” as the “scientists” in the world are today, they still need to demonstrate how one can take basic elements and put “life” into them – thus starting life. How could they logically expect anyone to buy into it happening by accident when it cannot even be demonstrated in a lab?

    For me, simple logic demands that we are here by the creative power of God, Who created everything in perfection – just as the record that he has preserved for us explains. But my conviction is deeper than simple logic. I listen to the “still small voice” that spoke to Elijah in the wilderness when he fled from Jezebel after Carmel. For those who do not know that “voice”, I guess I’ll be considered as crazy. That is okay. There will be plenty of others who know what I am talking about. If you know that “Sweet Spirit” it makes abundant sense.

    Jesus is coming soon. If we do not wholly embrace that relationship now, it will soon be too late.




    0
    View Comment
  26. Charles: How could they logically expect anyone to buy into it happening by accident when it cannot even be demonstrated in a lab?

    I’d say that’s an excellent question, Charles. One that perhaps the ‘educated’ might want to ponder a little more. They seem to think they are so brilliant that they know more than God. Yet, in all the years since they have begun this rebellion against their Creator, not one of them has been able to create that spark of life. And they never will. That is God’s province and His alone.




    0
    View Comment
  27. I read the gist of the article, Sean. I am still not convinced that a seven day week is proved by your evidence.

    If it will help people see that God Himself created the 7 day week, I guess it has some validity.

    But I still don’t think it is “written” in our bodily functions in any way. And I still suggest we could implement a 6 day or 8 day week and after many years, no one would know or feel the difference.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
    • @Bill Sorensen:

      Is it that you don’t recognize the evidence for circaseptan biorhythms within living things at all? Or, is it that you don’t agree that they appear to be endogenously coded within our DNA? Or, is it that you don’t think they orchestrate other such circadian rhythms and seem to have an effect on overall health and well-being for many different creatures?

      As far as I can tell, the evidence seems to be pretty strong on all of these points. If you think otherwise, please do present something more solid to back up your position beyond your own personal hunches. Perhaps it couldn’t hurt to investigate the evidence in a bit more detail for yourself before you take such a solid position on the evidence in hand? Simply saying that the evidence I’ve presented isn’t convincing for you isn’t very helpful to me. You need to explain why you think the scientific conclusion for the existence of endogenous circaseptan biorhythms is most likely mistaken. That would be much more helpful…

      Remember now, nothing is absolutely “proved” by science. All that can be said is that the evidence in hand strongly suggests the endogenous coding of 7-day biorhythms within all living things so far investigated, to include humans, and that these circaseptan rhythms affect the overall functionality of the organism.

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
  28. Sean, I think you mentioned the Greeks kept and 8 day week until The Sunday law was enforced by secular society.

    I guess I could wonder how it affected them biologically if in any way at all?

    Did they feel dis-oriented because of it? Did it upset their social order? Did they lose sleep because of it?

    I doubt you are correct because it doesn’t make any sense to me. It does make sense to me that God created the 7 day week cycle and affirmed it by the Sabbath on the last day of the cycle.

    I don’t see people becoming dis-oriented because they work on the Sabbath. Firemen often work in 48 hr. shifts. And not always on the same days of the week. And I don’t think they are dis-oriented by this work schedule.

    Most SDA’s build their life around a 7 day week cycle and find it very beneficial. God ordained it. It has physical, mental, emotional, spiritual and many other benefits. But I think it is God ordained, not written on our DNA.

    And as I said, if it is, I have no objection. I just don’t think it is consistent with a distinction between moral law and nature.

    You know I don’t object to showing “evidences” by way of nature and science to support some ID. But you also know I don’t think you can “prove” ID by nature or science.

    If as Christians, we believe God has always existed even if we can not explain this nor prove it, an evolutionist can equally claim nature has existed forever based on the same argument.

    In which case, neither side can “prove” a first cause. And neither side could claim they need to.

    As bible Christians, we believe the bible debunks evolution and the two theories are mutually exclusive. This is all we can really conclude by way of logic and science.

    Our first goal is to validate the trustworthiness of the bible. Prophecy does this best. And then we can show evolution is not possible if the bible is true. Why try to be more definitive than this? Nature does not deny the bible, but nature does not deny evolution either.

    Neither one can “prove” a first cause.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
    • @Bill Sorensen:

      Just because lightening doesn’t come down from heaven and zap you when you don’t do something in the most ideal way doesn’t mean that there isn’t a better way of doing things.

      Sure, other weekly cycles have been observed throughout history by different cultures without any kind of implosion. However, modern science suggests a measurable difference in the function of various kinds of organisms, to include humans, when in or out of line with a 7-day cycle. It may not be consciously noticeable to you or anyone else on a day to day basis. You may not consciously notice a slight increase in your stress hormone levels, etc. However, over time, these additional changes in your biological clocks outside of their preferred rhythms add up to produce a long-term effect.

      This evidence has been published in science journals. If you have some counter evidence, beyond your own personal hunches, please do present this evidence…

      Let me also point out, yet again, that nothing is absolutely provable. Of course ID isn’t absolutely provable by empirical means. No scientific hypothesis is absolutely provable. That doesn’t mean that scientific hypotheses are therefore not useful or do not provide a very significant degree of predictive value…

      By the way, as a said before, the credibility of Biblical prophecy is based on a form of empirical science – the historical sciences. Your claim that prophecy is some kind of internal form of “self-validation” simply isn’t true. The historical sciences are sciences because they are testable in a potentially falsifiable manner. The same thing is true for the credibility of Biblical prophecy. If not, then it simply isn’t useful as a form of rational support for the Divine origin of the Bible.

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
  29. I have been reading the book “The Story of Redemption”. I’d like to share here the final paragraph of the chapter – The Great Apostasy. (p. 324-325) I think it is so very relevant to the entire basis of this whole forum. What do YOU think?

    “The apostle Paul declares that ‘all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.’ 2 Tim 3:12 Why is it, then, that persecution seems in a great degree to slumber? The only reason is that the church has conformed to the world’s standard, and therefore awakens no opposition. The religion current in our day is not of the pure and holy character which marked the Christian faith in the days of Christ and His apostles. It is only because of the spirit of compromise with sin, because the great truths of the Word of God are so indifferently regarded, because there is so little vital godliness in the church, that Christianity is apparently so popular with the world. Let there be a revival of the faith and power of the early church, and the spirit of persecution will be revived and the fires of persecution will be rekindled.”

    To be honest, I never thought I’d see the day when we would have the basis for an evolution / creation debate within our church. But we also know that there “will be a revival of primitive Godliness…” AND really, there ARE groups within our ranks where this is happening.

    Jesus is coming soon. The opportunity for sealing our relationship with our Groom is passing by the “sleeping virgins”‘ It is happening, my brothers and sisters.

    Seal your relationship with Jesus, today.




    0
    View Comment
  30. Pingback: Creation Science Promoted at Two Adventist Universities, by Sean Pitman « adventlife

  31. PUC Student:
    @Charles:

    Sure, but if growth is how you measure success, you should know that among Adventist universities, Washington Adventist University had the most growth, La Sierra second and PUC third going into this school year. Our Campus Chronicle at PUC also reported that our enrollment increased between Fall and Winter quarter.

    This isn’t to bash Southern or SWAU. I support all of our Adventist universities including Southern, SWAU, WAU, La Sierra, PUC and the others.

    Care to tell us what percentage of PUC students are non-SDA? Was this published? And, how has the percentage of non-SDA students changed over the past decade of so?




    0
    View Comment
  32. Sean said….

    “Let me also point out, yet again, that nothing is absolutely provable. Of course ID isn’t absolutely provable by empirical means. No scientific hypothesis is absolutely provable. That doesn’t mean that scientific hypotheses are therefore not useful or do not provide a very significant degree of predictive value…”

    And this is where we agree, Sean. But it seems that at times, you would indicate that science can not only be helpful in understanding creation, but by way of science we can “prove” to an unbeliever there is a “god” who has done the creating.

    You probably know that Mormons believe that “god” simply manipulated what already is, and He can create nothing without first having something to start with.

    This would not be contrary to ID. But it would be contrary to the bible.

    When Jesus healed the blind man in John 9, the religious leaders first asked his parents how Jesus did this. They said they did not know, to ask their son.

    So, they asked him how Jesus did it. His response was, “I don’t know, all I know is I was blind and now I see.”

    In this story, this is no explaining “how” the man was healed. But there was proveable evidence that he was healed.

    But the final line is this. Even though it was “proveable” by the evidence that the man was healed, it still could not be “proved” that Jesus did it.

    Even the man’s parents affirmed that he was born blind. Everyone who knew him knew he was blind. Now he can see. That’s is non-negotiable as a fact.

    But did Jesus actually heal him? He didn’t know. His parents didn’t know. And when Jesus confronted him later on, it was Jesus Himself who confirmed that He was the one who healed him.

    And, of course, the man believed Him.

    So I don’t deny the validity of evidence, but it will not prove who God was or that it was even the God of the bible that did the creating. Not to an unbeliever anyway.

    He must first be convince of the validity of the bible itself that affirms who God is and His testimony about Himself in scripture. And as I stated before, it is bible prophecy that nails the reality of bible truth beyond question.

    People who want to discredit the bible always end up attacking bible prophecy. Especially Daniel.

    So even Jesus affirms His identity by “Moses and the prophets” as “proof” of who He is and the purpose of His mission.

    The problem with science, is that it will not be in harmony with miracles and it eventually must deny the bible since miracles can not be tested nor affirmed as possible by science.

    As Christians, we simply hold the word of God above science and we need not apologize for doing so, nor try to “prove” what we believe by way of a test tube.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
    • @Bill Sorensen:

      But it seems that at times, you would indicate that science can not only be helpful in understanding creation, but by way of science we can “prove” to an unbeliever there is a “god” who has done the creating.

      Again, there is no way to absolutely “prove” anything to anyone – especially to those who are not open to evidence. However, for those who are open to evidence, there is a way to show them that the available evidence strongly favors the existence of a God or God-like being and that this God is personally interested in his/her well being.

      The same thing is true for your own favorite form of evidence – Biblical prophecy. Prophecy cannot be used to “prove” anything to someone who is not open to the evidence in its favor. The evidence for prophecy is based on the credibility, the predictive value, of historical science. It is therefore open to at least the potential for testing and falsification. And, many believe that it has been effectively falsified in many cases. You and I, given our educational background, biases, and information that is available to us, disagree. We both consider the evidence supporting the credibility of Biblical prophecy to be very strong.

      Again, this is the nature of science or any empirical argument for the truth of anything. Nothing is absolutely provable. However, the weight of evidence is able to influence those minds who are honestly open to considering the evidence and are willing to follow “the weight of evidence”, as Mrs. White describes it, wherever it leads…

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
    • @Bill Sorensen:

      “The problem with science, is that it will not be in harmony with miracles and it eventually must deny the bible since miracles can not be tested nor affirmed as possible by science.”

      You are absolutely correct in that science is about hypothesis testing and understanding the natural world as explicable by natural law. Miracles are not natural and therefore cannot be a subject for scientific examination and can only be property understood by faith.

      “As Christians, we simply hold the word of God above science and we need not apologize for doing so, nor try to “prove” what we believe by way of a test tube.”

      This is also true but is not the way that most Adventists seem to act in practice as they do not entirely take the word of God over science when it comes to health care. We are mostly happy to accept naturalistic non-miraculous explanations for causes of disease and treatment over and above the clear intent of scriptures such as Matthew 17:14-20

      I dont think Adventism has really consistently addressed the problem of the natural vs supernatural in a way consistent with the way we live in the 21st century. This is reflected in our thinking about genesis 1 and 2 where there seems to be prevarication between invoking the account as a scientific statement that can scientifically tested and the acceptance of the account as a faith statement that is beyond the domain of science as you seem to suggest.




      0
      View Comment
      • @pauluc:

        Miracles are not natural and therefore cannot be a subject for scientific examination and can only be property understood by faith.

        That depends upon how you define the concept of a “miracle”. Is human-level design “miraculous”? Is Stonehenge a miracle of design? What about an arrowhead or a highly symmetrical polished granite cube? How about your wife’s ability to make a simple chocolate cake? a miracle?

        I proposed to you that the whole concept of a “miracle” is relative. It has nothing to do with the human ability to use science or a form of scientific reasoning to detect that a given phenomenon obviously required the input of a highly intelligent mind.

        You yourself believe that the origin of the universe required a God-like intelligence and creative power… as so a large number of scientists. And the universe isn’t a “miracle” of creativity and design?

        Consider that intelligence itself is miraculous. It’s origin cannot be explained via any known mindless mechanism of nature. Yet, science is able to detect the need for intelligence to explain various phenomena that exist in nature…

        Sean Pitman
        http://www.DetectingDesign.com




        0
        View Comment
  33. Faith: I’d say that’s an excellent question, Charles. One that perhaps the ‘educated’ might want to ponder a little more. They seem to think they are so brilliant that they know more than God. Yet, in all the years since they have begun this rebellion against their Creator, not one of them has been able to create that spark of life. And they never will. That is God’s province and His alone.

    I agree completely. Didn’t someone in the 1950’s try some experiment to “create life” from nonliving matter. Why haven’t we seen hundreds or thousands of further experiments to accomplish this? Has anyone tried? Why or why not? Seems to me that it failed and nobody has even tried to continue to do the impossible.




    0
    View Comment
  34. Re Sean’s Quote

    ” However, the weight of evidence is able to influence those minds who are honestly open to considering the evidence and are willing to follow “the weight of evidence”, as Mrs. White describes it, wherever it leads…”

    Hi Sean

    To be objective wouldn’t it be better to consider the weight of evidence empirically by scientific means rather than as Mrs. White saw it? I certainly don’t want to look at evidence through an atheist’s prism!

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

    Your agnostic friend




    0
    View Comment
    • @Ken:

      I think you’ve misunderstood my comment. It was Mrs. White herself who recommended following the “weight of evidence” that God has given us to understand.

      She was quite ahead of her time in many ways. She understood the nature of “proof”, that there is no such thing and that God would never provide absolute or otherwise overwhelming “proof” regarding the Divine origin of the Bible or of His Signature in nature. However, she argues that God does provide a significant “weight of evidence” to those who honestly and sincerely are looking for the truth of such matters.

      Here are some examples of what Mrs. White said in this regard:

      God never asks us to believe without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith.

      The truthfulness of God’s Word is established by testimony that appeals to our reason, and God has given ample evidence for faith in His Word. The evidence God gives us must be carefully investigated with a humble mind and a teachable spirit; and all should decide from the weight of evidence.

      Since the book of nature and the book of revelation bear the impress of the same master mind, they cannot but speak in harmony.

      Science brings from her research nothing that, rightly understood, conflicts with divine revelation. The book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other. They make us acquainted with God by teaching us something of the laws through which He works.

      Those who really desire to know the truth will find plenty of evidence on which to rest their faith…

      God requires of His people faith that rests upon the weight of evidence, not upon perfect knowledge.

      We should know for ourselves what constitutes Christianity, what is truth, what is the faith that we have received, what are the Bible rules–the rules given us from the highest authority. There are many who believe, without a reason on which to base their faith, without sufficient evidence as to the truth of the matter. If an idea is presented that harmonizes with their own preconceived opinions, they are all ready to accept it. They do not reason from cause to effect. Their faith has no genuine foundation, and in the time of trial they will find that they have built upon the sand.

      (MR Vol. 9, No. 724; Education, chapter 14 “Science and the Bible”; Mind, Character, and Personality 536)

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
  35. Sean said……

    ” Nothing is absolutely provable.”

    Yes, Sean, somethings are absolutely proveable.

    The blind man was blind and there was no doubt. The blind man could see, and there was not doubt about that either.

    What was not “provable” was “the how” of going from one to the other.

    First the Pharisees doubted that he was even blind in the beginning. So they demanded evidence and got it. Now they are satisfied that he was blind and can now see.

    Next they demand to know how it came about.
    There was no scientific evidence of the “how” of it, so they finally admitted it was no doubt a miracle.

    But they still would not credit Jesus with miracle powers. So they said, “Give God the glory, and not Jesus.”

    When he chided them for their unbelief, they said “we know Moses and the prophets, as for this man, we know not where He came from.”

    And they threw the man out of the church.

    Later in other stories, we learn they moved to more radical positions. In this story, they acknowledged it was God’s power that healed the blind man. But later, they didn’t want to admit that Jesus was God’s servant, and claimed that Jesus healed by the power of the devil.

    And this is the unpardonable sin. To attribute the work of God to being the work of Satan closes the door for the Holy Spirit to bring conviction of sin or affirm any bible truth. And of course, leads eventually to claiming the work of Satan is the work of God.

    From this point on, God has no means to “change their mind” and they are “sealed” in their rebellion and unbelief. So that, no matter what God did, they would claim it was Satan.

    Have you ever seen this happen before?

    Go read the Spectrum forum and you will see the process in action. And I am not saying anyone who posts there has committed the unpardonable sin. I am saying you can see the process in action.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
    • @Bill Sorensen:

      The only things that are “absolutely provable” are your own internal experiences. The blind man who could see had an internal experience of site. He knew within himself that he could see… just like I know for a fact that I like vanilla ice cream. No other evidence is needed beyond that which I have within myself. No science is needed. No further testing or investigation of any other evidence is needed.

      Where science or empirical evidence come into play is when you start talking about the nature of things that exist outside of your own mind and personal experience – like the Divine origin of the Bible and the reliability of Biblical prophecies. Such things exist independent of your own personal experience. They are external realities that exist independent of you and your existence. Therefore, they can be generally experienced by all who have access to them and can evaluate them with scientific methodologies.

      Any time scientific methodologies are required to investigate an external reality, there always exists the possibility for error – for being wrong. You could be wrong about Biblical prophecy since your notions are based on the empirical historical sciences… not simply your own internal experience.

      It is at this point that the best we can do is go with what we perceive as the “weight of evidence” – to borrow a phrase often used by Mrs. White to describe the basis for faith in the Bible as the Word of God.

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
  36. Bill Sorensen: But it seems that at times, you would indicate that science can not only be helpful in understanding creation, but by way of science we can “prove” to an unbeliever there is a “god” who has done the creating.

    When Romans 1 says that what “is seen in the things that have been made” is so convincing that it leaves even non believing pagans “without excuse” – you have a level of “observations in nature” that goes far beyond today’s very modest claims about intelligent design.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  37. Let me ask you and Sean a question, Bob. It is hypothetical, but we might speculate to some degree its implications.

    What if God created everything in the world including Adam and Eve, but never revealed Himself to them as the Creator?

    In which case, all they have is nature to decide and determine who they are, where they came from and where they are going.

    Do you suppose they could eventually decide there must be a “god” who created them, or, would they be more likely to consider some process of evolution that eventually brought them into existence?

    Obviously, I don’t know the answer and neither does anyone else. But I would tend to believe they would opt for evolution by way of science. Or, perhaps, think of some ID that was beyond communication.

    At any rate, I am convinced that nature itself without the divine revelation of God to man is worthless to bring anyone to a viable conclusion about origins.

    As for Paul’s statement, you must remember that all cultures had some knowledge of God. God had preserved a knowledge of Himself by way of tradition and this knowledge had been passed down from generation to generation.

    So, even though a pure and true knowledge of God was unknown to the heathen, Paul claims they are still culpable for what they did know and could observe by way of nature. It was not nature alone that Paul appealed to in reigning them up before the divine tribunal. But moral accountability by way of traditional values passed from generation to generation.

    As an example, marriage is not some “natural law” conclusion based on science and nature. Marriage was ordained by God in Eden and passed on for thousands of years in every culture from Adam’s time until today. It is moral law.

    And nature requires no legal unity before an intimate bonding can be effectual in child bearing. How well we know this is true in our society today.

    Remember, Paul said “because they did not like to retain God in their knowledge….” was the reason they gave way to corrupting and immoral activities that even nature could not and did not harmonize with.

    The ultimate knowledge of God is not by way of nature or science, but by divine revelation as God reveals Himself in His word. This is important in light of the great controversy because Satan said to Eve….”In the day thou eatest thereof, you shall be as God, knowing good and evil.”

    Meaning, you will need no “divine revelation” of what is good or bad, you can discern for yourselves what is true and what is not, by way of nature and science.

    Or more clearly, “You will need no law from God to be an authority over you life, you can be your own law.” Independence in other words. Or, self government outside God’s authority.

    And this is the bottom line of evolution vs. creation. The worship of nature vs. the worship of God as the creator.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
    • @Bill Sorensen:

      What if God created everything in the world including Adam and Eve, but never revealed Himself to them as the Creator?

      You mean, what if there was no Bible to tell us what is going on behind the scenes? Certainly the Bible gives us far more information than could be discovered by studying nature alone. However, this does not mean that the study of nature says nothing about the Creator of nature. Also, this is not to say that the credibility of the Bible is not itself based on the testability of its empirical claims.

      Again, your appeal to Biblical prophecy as an evidence of its Divine origin is dependent upon the credibility of historical science.

      Obviously, I don’t know the answer and neither does anyone else. But I would tend to believe they would opt for evolution by way of science. Or, perhaps, think of some ID that was beyond communication.

      You evidently don’t understand the evidence against naturalistic evolution or for the recent arrival of life on this planet or the rapid degeneration of the gene pools of slowly reproducing creatures (like all mammals) on this planet.

      The fact is that the best current scientific evidence is consistent with the claims of the Bible. This is why the weight of scientific information adds to the credibility of the Biblical claim to have a Divine origin.

      As Mrs. White explains, true science and biblical revelation are complimentary, shedding light on each other.

      Science brings from her research nothing that, rightly understood, conflicts with divine revelation. The book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other. They make us acquainted with God by teaching us something of the laws through which He works. – Ellen White

      So, you see, nature does in fact say something about its Author.

      At any rate, I am convinced that nature itself without the divine revelation of God to man is worthless to bring anyone to a viable conclusion about origins.

      Just because the conclusion one could draw from nature alone about God may be more limited than that which can be gained through a knowledge of the Bible does not mean that nature has absolutely nothing to say about any aspect of God. This concept of yours simply isn’t true. There have been those who have been led to acknowledge the existence of a God-like being through the study of nature alone – who had no access to the Bible or any other form of Divine revelation at all.

      As for Paul’s statement, you must remember that all cultures had some knowledge of God. God had preserved a knowledge of Himself by way of tradition and this knowledge had been passed down from generation to generation.

      This is also not true. Some cultures have in fact lost all knowledge of the existence of God or of the supernatural and are completely atheistic. And, many more cultures that recognize some form of God have a view of God that is completely degraded to the subhuman levels of morality.

      So, even though a pure and true knowledge of God was unknown to the heathen, Paul claims they are still culpable for what they did know and could observe by way of nature. It was not nature alone that Paul appealed to in reigning them up before the divine tribunal. But moral accountability by way of traditional values passed from generation to generation.

      The only morality that Paul claims that all people are born with is the knowledge of the royal law of love that God has placed in the hearts of all mankind. This is the only moral standard by which all will be judged since all have this component of the Law written upon their hearts.

      As an example, marriage is not some “natural law” conclusion based on science and nature. Marriage was ordained by God in Eden and passed on for thousands of years in every culture from Adam’s time until today. It is moral law.

      Marriage is not an inherent “moral law”. The only inherent moral law relating to marriage is that everyone knows that it is not right to take something that doesn’t belong to you. According to this law will all be judged – not according to something that they did not know nor had any opportunity to learn.

      The additional gifts of knowledge of the will and love of God are of great benefit to us, but knowledge, by itself, is not what makes anyone righteous before God. Righteousness is based on the Royal Law of Love – the Love of the Truth even if there be very little truth that was known by an individual.

      The ultimate knowledge of God is not by way of nature or science, but by divine revelation as God reveals Himself in His word.

      Again, the Bible does provide enhanced knowledge of God over the study of nature alone, but it certainly does not provide “ultimate knowledge of God” by any means. Only God has “ultimate knowledge” of God or anything else for that matter…

      Meaning, you will need no “divine revelation” of what is good or bad, you can discern for yourselves what is true and what is not, by way of nature and science.

      No. We still could not discern what is “good or bad” without the supernatural gift of God giving us this ability – i.e., “writing the law of love on our hearts”.

      The ability to think rationally/scientifically is also a direct gift of God – a gift for which we should be grateful. We should use this gift to glorify God. We should not declare this gift of God to be evil. Science is a very good gift of God.

      Or more clearly, “You will need no law from God to be an authority over you life, you can be your own law.” Independence in other words. Or, self government outside God’s authority.

      That’s not what this text means. It means that before the Fall mankind had no direct knowledge of evil. They only knew the good because God had only given them the good. In choosing to rebel against God, they would now gain direct personal knowledge of that which God would rather have shielded them – i.e., personal knowledge of evil.

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
  38. Re Sean’s Quote

    “I think you’ve misunderstood my comment.”

    Hi Sean

    I did indeed and apologize, in light of your references to EGW’s comments on the topic.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
  39. Re Bob’s Quote

    “When Romans 1 says that what “is seen in the things that have been made” is so convincing that it leaves even non believing pagans “without excuse” – you have a level of “observations in nature” that goes far beyond today’s very modest claims about intelligent design.”

    Hi Bob

    Is there any ‘observation in nature’ the world was ever free of death and decay or do you not apply that standard to your theological beliefs?

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
    • @Ken:

      The Bible says that God walked with Adam in the cool of the day. As you and I both know – “observations in nature” are not designed to test that historic fact one way or the other.

      But “observations in nature” do show that life does not “arise” out of rocks, water and gas. (No spontaneous generation – as it turns out).

      And also “observations in nature” do not show simple single celled eukaryote animals turning into higher life forms — like horses, over time.

      For Christians the claim is that God makes life — for evolutionists the claim is that nature makes life using a self-organizing principle not found in nature.

      One of those two claims is flawed on the surface of it.

      in Christ,

      Bob




      0
      View Comment
  40. Since retiring I have done a little subbing. Yesterday, a group and 2nd graders and I read about some giant 50 foot long croc bones found. The scientists proved that they existed the same time as dinos 65 million years ago because the croc skeleton is the same shape as current crocodiles, just bigger. I tho’t you would want to know what the dedicated teachers where I live are teaching the little children. With such incredible training in drawing conclusions they should someday make great advances in all areas of knowledge. (The teachers, BTW, really are committed, dedicated, and sincere.)

    Of course this find from Niger, Africa would make a much better case for Dr. Sanford’s message than for deep time.

    -Shining




    0
    View Comment
  41. Those who have studied the Adventist message should be recognizing the signs that are pointing to a very near second coming of Jesus. They are unfolding at an increasing frequency – just as labor pains.

    The “righteous” will be taken to Heaven – traveling across the universe in just a few days.

    Millions of redeemed will be changed and caught up “in the air” and taken on this great trip.

    The earth will be desolate of life, except for Satan and his rebel angels. The lost of humanity will be dead, awaiting “the second resurrection”.

    Do you believe these things? If you don’t believe that God could create the world and all in it in six days, you probably believe the above scenario to be something besides what it is represented to be.

    BUT –
    Again, those who have carefully and prayerfully studied this message, will see the signs that it is coming soon. We are in the very end times.




    0
    View Comment
  42. has anyone asked the adventist science teachers why they have left teaching YEC and now have come to support evolution? these are rational people who could easily be convinced by strong arguments, i don’t see any arguments against them, just attacks for being a part of the “world”




    0
    View Comment
    • @clinton:

      It is more instructive to ask blind faith atheist evolutionist biology professors like Sanford and Walter Veith why they dumped evolutionism and now accept the intelligent design argument for “What is seen in nature”.

      in Christ,

      Bob




      0
      View Comment
  43. One of the best ways to actually see what institutions stand for is to see what they say for themselves. A great example of this is in the latest Pacific Union Recorder (March 2012).

    SAU has two ads for professors, one Biology and one Chemistry, spelling out their requirements of being a supporter of SDA beliefs, including Biblical creationism.

    La Sierra, on the other hand, has an ad for a Biology Professor position, which has the only requirement being a “PhD.”




    0
    View Comment
  44. PUC Student:
    @Charles:

    Sure, but if growth is how you measure success, you should know that among Adventist universities, Washington Adventist University had the most growth, La Sierra second and PUC third going into this school year. Our Campus Chronicle at PUC also reported that our enrollment increased between Fall and Winter quarter.

    This isn’t to bash Southern or SWAU. I support all of our Adventist universities including Southern, SWAU, WAU, La Sierra, PUC and the others.

    Does PUC have results of the student enrollment over the past ten years of so, and how this breaks down into SDA vs. non-SDA? I would be interested in knowing this.




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.