Re David’s Quote “Instead of looking for creationist biologists, they could …

Comment on La Sierra University Granted Window to Show its Faithfulness to Church’s Creation Belief by Ken.

Re David’s Quote

“Instead of looking for creationist biologists, they could hire any biologist with the understanding that they are to teach facts only, and not speculate about origins. Then for the creation v. evolution part, they could just bring in lawyers, who are trained to argue and, more importantly, to separate fact from assumption. There’s no need to ask scientists to argue about origins when they are typically abysmally unqualified for the task.”

Hi David

That is an interesting perspective.

How do you see it working? Would you bring in lawyers arguing from different perspectives or just Adventist lawyers? Would you as a lawyer be prepared to argue for evolution for the sake of objectivity?

Just curious
Your agnostic friend
Ken

Ken Also Commented

La Sierra University Granted Window to Show its Faithfulness to Church’s Creation Belief
Re Charles Quote

“So we are all on the same page?

“TE and scripture are mutually exclusive principles?”

Hi Charles

Thanks for your comments.

I guess that would depend on how one interprets scripture. I’d agree if one is a conservative Adventist you’d be right. I’d say if one was an OEC creationist, that doesn’t think think the 6 days of creation were 24 hours long or recent, you’d be wrong. What is notable, as emphatically demonstrated on this site, is how birds of a feather that flock together all have gradients of at least slightly different biblical interpretation. What does that mean as to who is right or wrong?

Prof Kent is right about me, I am not a theistic evolutionist. For me the jury is still out on if there is , and the nature of, a design behind evolution.

However, I think the area of ID is a very interesting and should not be given scientific short shrift. But I think ID can be explored by all on an objective, rather than faith, or non- faith basis. I think the mistake that Dr. Pitman makes in this regard is to marry his conclusions to the prophetic statements of EGW and treat that blend as science. I understand and respect why he does it, but I think that method is tied to a deep bias that may well cloud his objective judgment. By the way, I think Dawkins, and possibly Hawkings, may suffer from a similar atheistic bias.

The fact that we exist is prima facie proof of some type of creation and hence logically a first cause. Yes time is relative and may not have existed in our universe before the big bang, or biblical creation, but it seems to have started at some point didn’t it? Was the first cause God or is this a conceptual concoction of Man? I don’t know but will be intrigued by that question until my demise. If David is right and the “stage is slowly being set for a fight over the Sabbath, them perhaps my demise won’t be ‘soon’ :).

Your agnostic friend
Ken


La Sierra University Granted Window to Show its Faithfulness to Church’s Creation Belief
Dear Bob and Prof Kent

I hear you.

Can one ever hope to gain hearts and minds by claiming to be holier than thou?

From my Sunday school days I fondly remember the story of Jesus washing the feet of others.

Your agnostic friend
Ken


La Sierra University Granted Window to Show its Faithfulness to Church’s Creation Belief
Re Prof Kent

“I have little doubt that anyone by this point is even paying the slightest attention–which I think is a good thing.”

Dear Prof Kent and Bob

We are. Sadly, not to the redundant substance of your dispute, but to the reason for it.

Excellent men and woman, like my friends Ron Henderson, Wes Kime, Sean, Shane, Charles,Lydian, you two too, from whom I am far more apart in faith than you and Bob, honour me with respect, tolerance and kindness. I am hopeful that you two will be able to do likewise and show this old infidel what Christian love is all about.

Your agnostic friend
Ken


Recent Comments by Ken

God and Granite Cubes
@ Sean

I enjoyed your article. As I’ve stated before, I think Intelligent Design is a more modern form of Deism and do not think it is irrational. However, as science on an ongoing basis shows what matters are explainable by cause and effect, less is attributable to conscious design. The question of course is what are the limits of science in this regard? For example, will it ever be able to explain First Cause/

Below is a more fulsome quote of Professor Townes, an self acknowledged Protestant Christian. Please note what he has to say about literal creation and evolution. Do you think he is being more reasonable than you on the nature of design?

“I do believe in both a creation and a continuous effect on this universe and our lives, that God has a continuing influence – certainly his laws guide how the universe was built. But the Bible’s description of creation occurring over a week’s time is just an analogy, as I see it. The Jews couldn’t know very much at that time about the lifetime of the universe or how old it was. They were visualizing it as best they could and I think they did remarkably well, but it’s just an analogy.

Should intelligent design be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in schools as religious legislators have decided in Pennsylvania and Kansas?

I think it’s very unfortunate that this kind of discussion has come up. People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there’s no evolution, no changes. It’s totally illogical in my view. Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.
Charles Townes
‘Faith is necessary for the scientist even to get started, and deep faith is necessary for him to carry out his tougher tasks. Why? Because he must have confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mind – in fact his own mind – has a good chance of understanding this order.’
-Charles Townes, writing in “The Convergence of Science and Religion,” IBM’s Think magazine, March-April 1966
Some scientists argue that “well, there’s an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.” Well, that’s a postulate, and it’s a pretty fantastic postulate – it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that’s why it has come out so specially. Now, that design could include evolution perfectly well. It’s very clear that there is evolution, and it’s important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they’re both consistent.

They don’t have to negate each other, you’re saying. God could have created the universe, set the parameters for the laws of physics and chemistry and biology, and set the evolutionary process in motion, But that’s not what the Christian fundamentalists are arguing should be taught in Kansas.

People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they’re saying, “Everything is made at once and then nothing can change.” But there’s no reason the universe can’t allow for changes and plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one. Maybe that’s a bad word to use in public, but it’s just a shame that the argument is coming up that way, because it’s very misleading. “


Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
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


Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
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


Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
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


Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
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