Comment on GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation by Kirsten Nixon.

@ Dr. Osborn

It’s so good to hear from you! A friend of mine was browsing this blog and told me that you had posted, so I came to check it out. I hope things are going very well with your work at WASC.

I understand your aversion to these kinds of blogs; I used to write for Spectrum, and I just got so exhausted by the comments that did not reflect Christ that I had to give it up. Many times, it seemed like the disagreements were based mostly on misunderstandings and a sense of anonymity that led to offensive words. I hope everyone here and on Spectrum’s site can strive for Christ-like words, while at the same time giving each other the benefit of the doubt that misunderstandings occur. I would hope that for both you and Sean Pitman, of course.

I want to share my thoughts on the matter at hand. First of all, it is interesting that students at schools like Simpson are committed to a literal interpretation of the Bible, while being taught by professors that believe in macro evolution, some of which “professing” agnosticism. Understanding first-hand how students can come to revere their brilliant professors–soaking in nearly everything they say–it truly puzzles me how a student taught that evolution is the answer to our origins enigma would maintain the belief in a literal six-day creation. It would be fascinating to sit down with some students from Simpson and talk about these matters.

My stance on the matter is that we should be as knowledgeable as possible about evolution, but also about the science behind creationism. I took a class at River Plate College in Argentina entitled Science and Religion. It was taught by a geologist and a geneticist (Robert Biaggi was the principle professor; he studied at WWC and LL––do you know him?). We studied about evolution, but it was no secret that the scientists firmly believed that there were serious flaws in the evolutionary theory, and they gave many many reason why creationism makes more scientific sense. In short, it was the best class that I ever took in college; it’s kept me interested and reading about creation and evolution.

I know many of the science professors at PUC, and I find them to be very supportive of the Biblical creation account. However that is not to say that I have not had some negative experiences with a couple of other unnamed professors in other disciplines. During my freshman year, I was in a class taught by an individual that was Adventist, but clearly opposed to the literal nature of the Bible. By the end of the year, we had all thrown out most literal aspects of the Bible, and I was directly told that I could be a Christian without believing in Christ––and I even bought it!! Argentina saved me from that slippery slope, but basically every classmate of mine from that year either left PUC and Adventism prior to graduation, or has openly told me that they no longer believe in the Bible. The class was designed to make us think critically, but I found that as students––even collegiates––we are extremely weak in finding flaws in the teachings of our professors. I am in no way advocating that we don’t teach about evolution; we should know everything possible. But it is incredible how destructive one professor that does not believe in the integrity of the Bible can lead students away from even the Gospel.

I’m not making any judgement on what you believe in this matter. As a student who has witnessed first-hand nearly my entire class of about 20 students lose their belief in the God of the Bible due to one professor’s unbelief, I hope my testimony can provide a little more light on the matter of how we teach what we teach and why.

Again, it’s so good to hear from you! I wish both your wife and you the absolute best. God bless, and I hope to see you around sometime.

Sincerely,

Kirsten

Recent Comments by Kirsten Nixon

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Linkedin

email

Print