Comment on Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull by BobRyan.
In our dialogue, we found a solution to be the teaching of Creation as a faith conviction, rather
than as science. Creation is not a scientific construct. It is a faith construct. The conviction of
Divine Creation lies beyond the purview of the methods of empirical science, and cannot be
subjected to them. Nevertheless, faith and science can and should constructively interact.
This approach is based on two core principles:
I. Affirmation and incorporation of the Biblical concept of creation, including the Seventhday
Adventist understanding of Genesis 1 and 2, as a faith position at the classroom level,
when questions of origins are discussed.
II. Continued teaching and research in the various disciplines of the modern sciences
according to the most up-to-date and rigorous standards of the published science, to
which we contribute as practicing scientists and active faculty, including the data which
highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various models.
In essence Greer put together a proposal that let them continue with an evolutionist agenda in the science class room – and only at the point of “origins” (abiogenesis) having to give lip service to Bible creation (something many T.E.s are happy to do anyway)
Sean Pitman and others have known for several years that La Sierra’s biology faculty was largely Darwinist and has been teaching Darwinism as truth….
The church was so relieved and gratified that the biology faculty (six of them signed the Joint Statement) was willing to yield to church concerns even in the slightest degree.
(This is in contrast, to me, Sean Pitman, and other Educate Truth people who want creation science to be taught as science, in a scientifically rigorous manner, not merely as faith. I was very critical of the Joint Proposal when it came out, but unlike Larry Blackmer, I had not been banging my head against the Chinese wall Randal Wisbey had tried to build between the LSU biology faculty and rest of the world.)
The NAD, Dan Jackson, and Larry Blackmer were ecstatic with the Joint Statement, but Randal Wisbey was not. He was incensed, because was Greer did was totally contrary to his own strategy of trying to clamp down on the flow of information and ride out the storm, hoping that Educate Truth would just tire out and go away.
interesting – but given the fact that the proposal was in fact a trap for the NAD to fall in – it is helpful that PUC cut it off leaving themselves exposed on the point of “anything for evolution” rather than adopting “the mere appearance” of compromise.
BobRyan Also Commented
Ervin Taylor: Ron is attempting to reason with generally unreasonable individuals.
Ahh the “tolerant liberal” is seen once again in the level of his discourse.
His (Ron’s) comments would be well received at Adventist Today and Spectrum.
And at Pharyngula.
Well finally Erv says something that Nobody questions.
Ron’s idea represent some segment within the church today. On this board that does not amount to the most popular one – but this is a good place to have that view presented.
This board is not going to ban conservatives simply because their posts are too effective at exposing the weakness in the liberal methods, agenda and argument.
Ron: Guy and Bull are responsibility discussing an issue that many people both in and out of the church have concerns about. I think our church wants to support efforts to understand how to. reconcile the Bible and science. I don’t think we should support a church that tries to suppress the search for truth. I believe what is happening here is wrong, and immoral to the point that I can not in good conscience pay tithe to the regular tithe fund. I recommend sending your tithe to the local church only, or to other charities in protest.
There are many ways to support blind-faith-evolutionism of the style that was promoted at LSU.
Those who “want to see more of that stuff” going on — may consider the solution you propose.
Those who want to see less of it – may consider actively supporting the church instead of your suggestion.
Sean Pitman: Spectrum and Adventist Today are both strongly opposed to many of the most basic and fundamental of the beliefs, goals, and ideals of the Seventh-day Adventist Church organization.
Admittedly – they are pretty well known for that — even though they also will allow a token representation from inside the Church from time to time.
I guess they call that sugar coating their message.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind