Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers

Dr. Ariel Roth is widely recognized as being one of the founding father’s of a scientific form of creationism within the Adventist Church.  He has written popular books on origins that have been widely read in many different languages around the world (Origins, Linking Science and Scripture and Science Discovers God) and has spent much of his life teaching about and promoting the scientific evidence for the credibility of the Biblical view of origins – to include a literal 6-day creation week and a truly worldwide Noachian Flood as being responsible for much of the geologic column and fossil record.  In this line, Dr. Roth has put together a series of PowerPoint presentations (these presentations also open in LibreOffice or OpenOffice programs)  as an aid for teachers in our high schools and colleges, and even grade schools, to present an introduction to the scientific evidence for creation to their students.

Such materials are rather difficult to find in a pre-prepared lecture format for teachers to use and modify according to the needs of their classes.  So, Dr. Roth’s contribution of “Seventeen discussions about sciences and Scriptures, prepared for the general reader, elementary and secondary students and their teachers” is an important step in helping to establish a modern educational curriculum for students in our Adventist school system on the topic of origins – and couldn’t come at a more needed time for our church.

The lecture materials can be found on and freely downloaded from Dr. Roth’s website:

Sciences and Scriptures

SciencesandScriptures.com
 

.

Also, a video presentation of Dr. Roth introducing these lecture materials is linked below:

 

Share on Facebook0Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

29 thoughts on “Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers

  1. I’m delighted that Dr. Roth, as I would expect, is presenting a scientific perspective on fiat creation.

    Too often in secular circles the belief prevails that special creationists are “ignorant and uninformed”.

    A cogent, alternative, yet soundly scientific, explanation of available data is rarely heard. Young people desperately need to be exposed to this.

    Pastor Richard Gates, RN
    (Retired GC Mission Aviation Bolivia/Peru)




    0
    View Comment
  2. Dr Roth is a great example of what all of our science teachers should be doing.

    What a blessing to have such dedicated scientists within the church.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  3. I haven’t watched the whole thing, but I have learned a lot from this so far. Thank you and keep providing us with these types of articles for our educational benefit.




    0
    View Comment
  4. Great to see this article about evidence of creation. More like this are encouraging. I find this to be more uplifting than reporting and complaining of what those in apostasy are doing. Keep them coming gentlemen.




    0
    View Comment
  5. Dear Adventist friends

    Ideally science should not be biased towards Darwinian evolution or biblical creation. It should be an objective tool to look at reality no matter where the results lead.

    If the preponderance of evidence supports biblical creation so be it. The key thing is not to shoehorn the facts into any ontological positions but allow the facts to speak for themselves.

    That is why I remain open to scientific investigation of the concept of Intelligent Design. In fact, as many of you know, I have advocated for and agreed to support a Chair in Intelligent Design at any Adventist university. Strangely, not a single person has taken me up on the idea. Why?

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
    • @ken:

      ken: I have advocated for and agreed to support a Chair in Intelligent Design at any Adventist university

      I am aware of SDA scholars arguing in favor of intelligent design – but I am not aware of any agnostic philanthropy groups funding science chairs at SDA schools for that purpose.

      I am interested in learning more about it though.

      in Christ,

      Bob




      0
      View Comment
    • @ken: Re. your oft-repeated suggestion of a Chair of Intelligent Design at LSU or some other Adventist university, that you see as having been ignored by everybody, whether eonic or Genesis 1 Creationist, your perception is accurate, almost. There’s not been much reaction. And understandably so, considering the mindsets, polarized and polymerized as they are, on this particular site.

      Being the tidy sort that gets jumpy when things dangle, obsessive is probably the word for it, I am, dear friend, disquieted by your latest lament, and will take it upon myself to address it, again.

      This is revised version of what I said to you November 14, 2011: ID is an oxymoronically impossible leap for an atheist, if a very insightful and intelligent leap for an agnostic. Congratulations on making it, as I am assuming you have, or sort of have, or at least not altogether dismissed. But for a Christian, a great devolution, a great recidivation, a tragic forfeiture, foreclosure, worse. If I were to use the vocabulary of some of our recent posters, I’d not put it as delicately.

      So the establishment of a Chair in Intelligent Design at Harvard would be a quantum leap of insight and enlightenment. I’m all for it. Three cheers! The establishment of new such Chair at LSU would a step backwards. Sad. Hand me another Kleenex.

      Anyway, establishment of a new Chair in Intelligent Design at LSU would be redundant. LSU already has such a chair de facto. It is called the Chair of Biology, which does not not teach theistic evolution, or eonic creationism, naught but Intelligent Design ramped up towards God, too far to assuage the Western Society of Accreditation, not far enough for the Adventist Association of Accreditation.

      But might not LSU itself squirm for other reasons at the idea of a Chair of Intelligent Design? The very term “Intelligent Design” seems to make, say, Erv Taylor (nominee for the Board to establish such a Chair) squirm, as at the Tea Party, with which he has equated ID. That’s just our Ervy Taylor being whimsical again, but he’s got a point. “Intelligent Design” is no longer just a scientific notion. It is connected with a formal and, for all I know, legally structured organization, with attendant political baggage, that has undertaken to promote (and defend) the scientific concept in court against the formal, structured ACLU, and thus has earned its popular image that somehow troubles Dr. Taylor, and, I suspect, the LSU administration, certainly the Biology Department.

      You trying to make the very people you’re trying to help, both sides, nervous?

      Which raises the final question: Where at LSU, would that Chair be put? In the Science Department? In the Religion Department? Surely you recall the arguments for both, and how heated? So back to you, Ken, where would you put it? Don’t answer that question. Ignore it.

      Mainly, thanks for making your suggesting again, thus to give me the opportunity, for which I’ve been on the lookout, to thank you for your interest and your attitude. Perhaps ironically and surprisingly, no, not surprisingly, our “agnostic friend” has been generally rather more empathetic and less difficult, just nicer, than our own updated brethren and colleagues, the likes of whom I grew up with and knew at La Sierra (then) College. Routinely, it’s gotten to be a familiar routine, they appear here clad in shimmering anonymity, and, after proclaiming a certain superior holiness, depart in a huff, blowing our dust off their sandals. You’ve stuck with us a couple of years now. But it’s time to move on from that Chair to our park bench.




      0
      View Comment
      • @Wesley Kime:

        I couldn’t agree more. The concept of a “chair of intelligent design” in one of our schools would be at odds with the very purpose of our school system. In all SDA schools all science teachers (and even religion teachers) should not only be teaching the empirical basis for intelligent design behind various features of the natural world and written Word, but should be presenting the evidence for the Biblical perspective on origins. If such were actually happening, there would be no need for a special title or “chair” for doing what everyone is supposed to be doing anyway…

        Sean Pitman
        http://www.DetectingDesign.com




        0
        View Comment
      • @Wesley Kime:

        Wesley Kime: This is revised version of what I said to you November 14, 2011: ID is an oxymoronically impossible leap for an atheist, if a very insightful and intelligent leap for an agnostic. Congratulations on making it, as I am assuming you have, or sort of have, or at least not altogether dismissed. But for a Christian, a great devolution, a great recidivation, a tragic forfeiture, foreclosure, worse.

        Well that is one way to view it. The other way to view it is that certain concepts found in the Bible have implications going all the way down to more basic, expected, foundational observations in nature.

        I.D. and the Genesis creation account are only in opposition if you insist on an either-or model instead of both-and.

        The literal 7 day week has in it – every unique principle in I.D.

        So also does a T.E. model where “God of the gaps” is used to bridge the scientific contradictions in evolution. In fact the T.E.’s that come here arguing against I.D. are unwittingly making a distinctively atheist argument.

        Both of the Genesis model and the T.E. model are inclusive of the more basic principles of I.D. As such I.D. does not contradict either one because I.D. does not address the intelligent “who” or the design “how”.

        When you see an object streaking across the sky a great distance away – and wonder if it is a meteor or a space shuttle, one hint that it may not be a simple mindless undirected meteor, is to observe the course changes that the object makes.

        Course changes “alone” do not fulfill all the criteria of a Space Shuttle – but a few of them will certainly rule out a meteor.

        And that is a point that would go a long way in the I.D. debates within the context of biology. Well worth publishing.

        in Christ,

        Bob




        0
        View Comment
  6. Ken, the answer to your question is fairly straightforward. While some of the academics in the church visit Educate Truth with regularity, the majority are appalled by the tactics and lack of Christian civility and want no association with it. So, in large part, it’s an awareness issue. Further, most of the academics are disgusted by the discord that these debates create, and probably don’t wish to draw attention or add further fuel to the debate. For the most part, their job is to train medical professionals, not professional scientists or professional apologists, and the apologetics that some want to be front and center in education are, by necessity, of secondary importance. Nothing is going to change that.

    In the SDA system, there is only one program that advances the relationship between science and faith through active research (a few others claim to, but lack a publication record), and that is Loma Linda University. The department chair of the biology program, Leonard Brand, is a leading and well published authority on issues related to intelligent design. You can easily Google his contact if you wish to offer the kind of support that results in an official title for his position. I know that he would be open to support if have something financial in mind. In all frankness, titles like you are proposing are created only through substantial gifts.

    I hope this answers your question.




    0
    View Comment
    • @MiddleGround:

      The fact is that some of the most prominent academics in our church who still support the SDA position on origins not only support our efforts here at EducateTruth, but have contributed articles using their real name (like Dr. Arthur Chadwick) or under various pseudonyms.

      Public association is one thing. Private association is another. While many do not feel at liberty to publicly associate themselves with our work here (for obvious reasons), most who still believe in SDA fundamentals (and who are aware of the longstanding situation at LSU and other places) feel that our work in providing enhanced transparency for what is being taught to our young people in our schools was/is necessary on some level.

      I would also like to say that the work of Leonard Brand, Ariel Roth, Arthur Chadwick, Tim Standish, and the like, is extremely important to our Church. We are all deeply indebted to men like these who are actively striving to uphold the faith of our young people, and the church membership at large, with the use of rational empirically-based apologetic arguments…

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
  7. Re Intelligent Design

    Gentleman, thanks to all for your fulsome replies.

    Yes Wes, I remember your cogent analysis of November 14/11. I appreciared it then and its reiteration now. indeed I was waiting to hear from others especially Sean whose site is named Detecting Design. And, here I agree with Bob, ID
    does not necessarily rule out any particular design i. e. fiat
    creation ot theistic evolution.

    But quite frankly I am disaapointed with Sean’s response, not Sean himself for whom I have deep admiration, because I see this as a step backward. Why? Because if you burn the bridge between science and biblical faith it will not be science that suffers.

    Ironically Sean makes many fine, cogent arguments for design in nature so I find his reluctance to promote it formally in Adventist education troubling. Respectfully, I don’t think serious enquiry about reality can creep around the periphery or sneak in through the back door. I’m afraid I see a double standard here.

    Yes Wes, I understand why Adventists are nervous on this issue. But if one is seeking the truth about reality one can’t wall it in or burn bridges of enquiry. Wes, perhaps the Hellenic maxim should have not so much: Know thyself, but rather Think for thyself. My park bench in Pugwash is a welcome one but does not feature ontological dividers. It is well designed for truth seekers.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
    • @Ken:

      Ironically Sean makes many fine, cogent arguments for design in nature so I find his reluctance to promote it formally in Adventist education troubling. Respectfully, I don’t think serious enquiry about reality can creep around the periphery or sneak in through the back door. I’m afraid I see a double standard here.

      I’m perfectly fine with the promotion of intelligent design within our own schools. However, I would not be entirely satisfied if ID is all that is presented in our own schools. After all, many IDists believe in millions of years of evolution of life on this planet with a little bit of ID thrown in. This is not the SDA position and should not be presented as the best we have to offer in our schools. Also, I’m not fine if only a single person or “chair” of intelligent design is presenting the evidence for design, even God-like creative power, behind certain features of nature. I personally believe that all staff teaching at all Adventist schools should be promoting intelligent design as a first step toward God as well as other evidences available detailing the actual identity, nature and character of God and the evidence for the Biblical perspective on origins.

      Yes, I am suggesting that our scientists should also be theologians to some degree. I’m also suggesting that our theologians be scientists to some degree as well. There should be no distinct dividing line between the two disciplines…

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
  8. Re Sean’s Quote

    “Public association is one thing. Private association is another. While many do not feel at liberty to publicly associate themselves with our work here (for obvious reasons), most who still believe in SDA fundamentals (and who are aware of the longstanding situation at LSU and other places) feel that our work in providing enhanced transparency for what is being taught to our young people in our schools was/is necessary on some level.”

    Hi Sean

    The irony here is that those that are supporting institutional enhanced transparency are hiding behind cloaks of anonymity. That’s not how you, I, Wes, Bob Ryan, Wes, Bill Sorenson and many others here behave. Imagine if Jesus hid behind a cloak and didn’t proclaim his nature. What legacy of respect would he have left?

    Conviction requires courage period.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
    • @Ken:

      I personally would prefer personal as well as institutional transparency. However, there are times when full transparency is not ideal and would play into the hands of the those opposed to the cause at hand. Even Jesus asked that many of his acts, especially his miraculous acts, be kept secret (Mark 7:36)… that they not be publicly proclaimed or spread abroad as they would incite additional hatred and prejudice from those opposed to His work and hinder the work He still desired to do within Judea.

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
  9. Re Wes’s Quote

    “. But for a Christian, a great devolution, a great recidivation, a tragic forfeiture, foreclosure, worse. If I were to use the vocabulary of some of our recent posters, I’d not put it as delicately.”

    Hi Wes and Sean

    I just read again portions on ID from Sean’s website Detecting Design. I am very confused by both of your responses. Why the heck is Sean promoting ID as a scientific theory if this is such a Christian retreat? Perhaps you two differ here? I apologize if I am missing the obvious but I see a tremendous disconnect between what Sean is saying about ID and what he is prepared to do to promote it within the subset of Adventist education.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
    • @Ken:

      The ability to detect the need for at least some form of intelligent design to explain various features of the universe and of living things on this planet is just the first step toward God. While this is an important first step to be sure, it is not the final step that may be achieved in the search for God through the study of all the evidence that is available.

      In short, in our Adventist schools nature should not be studied independent of the study of the Bible and what the Bible says about the Author of both nature and the written Word. Both should be studied hand-in-hand… especially within our science classes.

      As Mrs. White once said:

      Ignorance may seek to support false views of God by appeals to science, but the book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other.

      We are thus led to adore the Creator and to have an intelligent trust in His word.

      No finite mind can fully comprehend the existence, the power, the wisdom, or the works of the Infinite One. Says the sacred writer: “Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.” Job 11:7-9. The mightiest intellects of earth cannot comprehend God. Men may be ever searching, ever learning, and still there is an infinity beyond.

      Yet the works of creation testify of God’s power and greatness. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork.” Psalm 19:1. Those who take the written word as their counselor will find in science an aid to understand God. “The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead.” Romans 1:20.

      – EGW, PP, 115-116

      Notice here the statement that the written Word and the study of nature shed light upon each other. Again, for such reasons, one should be studied without neglecting the study of the other.

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
  10. ken:
    That is why I remain open to scientific investigation of the concept of Intelligent Design. In fact, as many of you know, I have advocated for and agreed to support a Chair in Intelligent Design at any Adventist university. Strangely, not a single person has taken me up on the idea. Why?

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

    Ken, No “Chair of Intellegent Design” needs to be started, since our whole philosophy is of Intellegent Creationism. Nobody has taken you up on it because it is not needed. We need to have our SDA institutions supporting all of our beliefs, not just one “Chair”.




    0
    View Comment
  11. Re Sean’s Quote

    “Yes, I am suggesting that our scientists should also be theologians to some degree. I’m also suggesting that our theologians be scientists to some degree as well. There should be no distinct dividing line between the two disciplines…”

    Hello Sean

    First of all, thank you Holly for your comments. You have always treated me with civility and charity for which I am most grateful.

    Secondly, on reflection, I do hope I was not strident or offensive in my recent remarks. I am a guest here and should behave with the utmost respect regarding my Adventist hosts. After all I was proposing the Chair of ID at an ‘Adventist’ institution! What gall and temerity from an agnostic!

    However something Dr. Kime said struck a very strange chord in me: that a Chair in ID at Harvard would be a quantum leap ( forward – my edit) while such a Chair would be a step backward at LSU. I’ m very sorry Wes, but for me to honestly investigate reality such double standard is not acceptable.

    I am sad today, because I think I’m coming to the end of my Adventist journey. I really did see ID as a sort of bridge between your faith and objective inquiry about a ‘Grand’ Design. (apologies Mr. Hawkings). Oh Wes , perhaps I am ontological Don Quixote after all, comically tilting towards immovable Adventist windmills. 🙁 .

    However all is not forlorn because I’ve made excellent friends of the heart here. ;). I won’t forget you.

    Good luck in your pursuit of God.

    Goodbye
    Your agnostic friend
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
    • @Ken:

      I am sad today, because I think I’m coming to the end of my Adventist journey. I really did see ID as a sort of bridge between your faith and objective inquiry about a ‘Grand’ Design.

      The science behind ID is indeed a very important bridge for a form of objective inquiry as an initial step toward finding God. After all, one must first believe that an intelligent designer of some kind must be responsible for various features of the universe before one can consider that perhaps a God or God-like being might have been responsible. And, one must then recognize that God actually exists before one can strive to have a personal relationship with God. It’s a stepwise process for many people.

      Now, consider carefully what our friend Wes Kime is suggesting before you dismiss Adventism in general. Dr. Kime is suggesting that the objective evidence does not end with the discovery that ID is rationally required to explain certain features of the universe. There is also objective evidence to suggest the actual identity of the Designer – that the Designer of the universe and of life on this planet is in fact an omnipotent God who is personally interested in you and me.

      It is in this sense that Adventist education should be in advance of secular education which has yet to even make the first rational step toward God by recognizing the need for any kind of designer behind any aspect of the universe in which we live. Harvard science professors are still struggling with the notion that mindless naturalistic mechanisms can explain it all. Adventist professors should not only have taken this step already, but should be well beyond the first few steps in finding God and in their ability to present evidence for His existence, identity, and character to their students… to include credible evidences for the Biblical perspective of origins.

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
    • @Ken: “something Dr. Kime said struck a very strange chord in me: that a Chair in ID at Harvard would be a quantum leap (forward – my edit) while such a Chair would be a step backward at LSU. I’ m very sorry Wes, but for me to honestly investigate reality, such double standard is not acceptable. …[therefore] I think I’m coming to the end of my Adventist journey.”

      I can, of course, dear friend, understand why, and respect that, you would see the two directions of leaping, forward and backward, by Harvard and LSU, as a double standard.

      But might it also be seen as simple Einsteinian Relativity? It all depends on from whence you’re starting or observing. Two venues, Harvard vs. LSU, two vectors, not two standards. At any rate, a parting of our ways. The Chair did it. A very unlucky ill-omened Chair, from the start.

      Parting — that indeed is sad, especially this parting. I grieve too. In sadness we are agreed. That’s not double speak; only you could I say that to.

      For these several years you, and your courteous ways, even your questions, have been most fascinating, even endearing, inspiring to both poetic and, I now regret, rasping response. I’ve so much enjoyed your postings, always looked for them first, and appreciated your uncommon patience and politeness, and our camaraderie in the bomb shelter and on the grandstand. Too bad the Chair, our double bed, didn’t work out.

      As benediction, maybe we can all get together again, somewhere. Meanwhile, the Mizpah, which I think I should be the one to deliver, seeing it was, you say, my one-liner that was the last straw, for which I’ll get heck all around, and rightly so: “The Lord watch between me and thee, when we are absent one from another.” Genesis 31:49.

      What the heck, have some popcorn for the road. And don’t forget your cyber plaque. You will be remembered, appreciated, thought about, prayed for. Do come back soon.

      Until then, your jousting friend, W




      0
      View Comment
  12. Like Ken, I am puzzled by the lukewarm reception of his suggestion to establish an endowed chair for intelligent design at LSU. Perhaps there was confusion about his term “intelligent design.” I think he had in mind the kind of creationism that most SDAs believe in, specifically young earth creationism or young life creationism (I realize some of you view ID negatively). So it could be called an Endowed Chair of Young Life Creationism, or whatever term is preferred.

    For what it’s worth, I like his idea for several reasons:

    1) SDA professors in all our institutions with the exception of LLU have relatively heavy teaching loads and scant time available for research, which means they have little time to conduct and publish research on creationism (I’m quite certain Art Chadwick would concur). That’s why as a denomination we have no well published and respected researchers with expertise on the subject, with the sole exception of Leonard Brand at LLU–who ranks among the world’s most successful scientists whose research focuses on YLC (if you believe there are other SDA experts with more expertise, you might be disappointed if you conducted a search of their publication records).

    2) Most students in our institutions are seeking a career in a health profession, therefore SDA professors by necessity focus mostly on subjects that prepare students for the biomedical fields. Few have time to keep up with issues related to creationism and evolution, let alone conduct original research on the subject. You can’t really expect all professors to be as well informed with the subject as Leonard Brand.

    3) It would be fantastic for LSU to have a professor with the available time and resources to pursue high quality research on creationism, which I believe was the intent of Ken’s wish. We already have one such professor at LLU; why not another at LSU? I’m astonished that some here seem to think it is undesirable to have another expert SDA researcher on the subject. Perhaps some of you naively imagine that ALL professors have the unlimited time and resources to become world-class researchers on creationism–and are wasting the denomination’s money by not doing so.

    4) SDA institutions struggle to meet their payroll obligations and can benefit by obtaining financial assistance from donors.

    5) If the evidence overwhelmingly favors the traditional SDA position of origins, as some here claim, what harm is there in funding a professor with the time and resources to discover even more evidence? It’s pretty hard to convince the world that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly favors our position unless the evidence is published in respectable scientific journals–as Leonard Brand has done repeatedly. It won’t ever happen unless there are more full-time researchers who focus exclusively on issues related to creationism.




    0
    View Comment
    • @Eddie:

      I agree with these points. It would be great if our schools would finance researchers who support a Biblical model of creationism and are active in trying to publish papers in science journals… such as Leonard Brand or Arthur Chadwick. Unfortunately, I’ve recently heard that Leonard Brand, in particular, is struggling to find funding to support active creation research. I’m sure he would appreciate any financial support he can get.

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
  13. @Eddie, One of the reasons some may be hesitant is that “Intelligent Design” means different things to people. There are those who support Intelligent Design who are not Christian and those who are Christian. So, just because Intelligen Design is being taught does not necessarily mean the type of Creationism we in the SDA Church and on ET are talking about.




    0
    View Comment
  14. A “Chair” of Intelligent Design would indeed be a “step backward” for an SDA institution, while being a GIANT step forward for one at Harvard.

    As for being a “bridge” to somewhere, I have serious doubts about that, too. There is no way to “bridge” the ideas of Creationism, as presented here and other places, with Darwinian, or any other similar type of theory.




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.