@pauluc: “Science has no opinion on whether God or the …

Comment on Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes by George Evans.

@pauluc:

“Science has no opinion on whether God or the supernatural have never intervened they assume that he does not routinely intervene and that we can assume natural process as explanation.”

I would venture a guess that a large percentage of evolutionary scientist despise the idea of God and the bible. You are certainly a kind, trusting soul, Paul.

George Evans Also Commented

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
@Pauluc: You wrote, “In the Adventist tradition I am not dualist and accept that our brains are simply part of the natural world. They are not the repository of the soul or an antennae for the supernatural world but are highly complex elaborations of the invertebrates head ganglion.”

I didn’t realize we had this tradition. Now that I think about it, you seem to be voicing an idea I call neo-deism. I have used the term anti-pantheism in Adventist circles for obvious reasons. As a people we got so afraid of pantheism that we bolted to the other side of the road, and apparently developed a new tradition when I wasn’t looking.

This is very interesting. Until now I hadn’t understood the nexus of anti-pantheism opening the door for theistic evolution. Thank you, Paul.


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
@Pauluc: A bee is not an extrinsic agent. Bees are not artistic.


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
@Sean Pitman: From Merriam-Webster:

1. a : something created by humans usually for a practical purpose; especially : an object remaining from a particular period
b : something characteristic of or resulting from a particular human institution, period, trend, or individual


Recent Comments by George Evans

The Full History of La Sierra University vs. Louie Bishop
@Pauluc: You wrote of Sean, “Your definition of science…to include the supernatural is a private interpretation that flies in the face of the accepted definitions.”

Correct. And that position should be adopted by all Adventist scientific institutions.


The Full History of La Sierra University vs. Louie Bishop
@Pauluc: You wrote, “I accept the SDA 28 fundamental as the description of Adventist thought about the bible…”

An athiest could honestly make the same comment.


Bringing the Real World to Genesis: Why Evolution is an Idea that Won’t Die—IV [A Review]
@Professor Kent: I agree with your assessment: “And this highlights and handful of ENORMOUS problems Christians have in trying to base their beliefs on evidence:

“1 – They lack access to original material.”

This has always been true for the rank and file.

“2 – They lack formal training to understand and interpret it.”

In the past, scientists would present interesting things to their local churches, and schools, much like the old lyceum idea. But now our scientist have let us down.

3 – The material out there is immense and an honest soul can claim to have good understanding of only a minute fraction of it.”

We scientists need to repent of evolution and begin to digest the material so we can educate the people in the wonders of nature–God’s second book.


The Full History of La Sierra University vs. Louie Bishop
@Sean Pitman: When I was young I remember Friday night “star studies” conducted by astronomers, and Sabbath afternoon nature walks conducted by biologists. And earlier, in the 40’s I understand scientists would accompany evangelists and present scientific information that corroborated the scriptures. Can you imagine a LSU biologist accompanying an evangelist now?


The Full History of La Sierra University vs. Louie Bishop
@PhilCromwell: I was with you pretty much, until the last paragraph where you bared your conservative teeth. I don’t want pauluc and Professor Kent to leave. I want them to join us. They both claim to unquestioningly believe that God is the creator. Certainly they can’t, in good conscience, feel right standing with a movement designed to steal His thunder.