Comment on Creationist students find little support from LSU by BobRyan.
I applaud the professors at LLU for giving students the scientific knowledge they need in order to function in the real world. Conservative Christians may not like it, but need to understand that evolution is accepted as fact by the rest of the world â€“ and many Creationists (including myself) do not see why evolution could not have been Godâ€™s means to create.
1. By definition – that is “not a creationist”.
2. Your suggestion is that evolution as a solution for the doctrine on origins – could just as well be married to the bible as creation – is demonstratably not workable.
3. Any Bible believing Creationist would have a hard time rationalizing the material listed in the courses as being a simple dispassionate statement on the blunder, junk-science and myth of evolutionism on a pure FYI factual basis. In direct contrast the course work is seen to be just as biased and wrong-headed as professor Bradley self-proclaimed it to be.
I happen to know several LSU students who in the past were NOT taught about evolution, and after leaving school and being confronted with the overwhelming scientific evidence for it, they felt they had been deliberately deceived and betrayed by the school and by the church, and actually lost their faith in God as a result.
And just to think — they could have lost faith at LSU instead of waiting to do it some place else. I guess you have a point there – get rid of the bible-believing students “as soon as possible” — with a “why wait” program?
Again – evolutionism lacks a certain degree of “logic”. 😉
How sad that we have forced students to choose between faith in God and scientific fact!
Again the mythology that evolutionism is “science fact” is a good story being told by evolutionists – but it is not creationism by any stretch of the imagination — nor is it science as it turns out.
But should our schools be contrasting science fact with evolutionism? Oh yes! Absolutely!
Creation vs. evolution is NOT a salvation issue.
so does this mean you actually have not taken the 5 minutes to read Ex 20:8-11 and 3SG 90-91??
If that is the case – I highly recommend spending the time there – it is well worth it.
BobRyan Also Commented
You are right â€“ I made a typo â€“ I meant to type â€œLSUâ€ rather than â€œLLU.â€ I apologize for the confusion.
Wikipedia defines creationism this way: â€œCreationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural agency.â€ Therefore, if I believe that God used evolution as a means to create life, I am by this definition a creationist. However, if you define a creationist as one who believes in a literal interpretation of the Genesis account, then youâ€™re right â€“ Iâ€™m not a creationist. It all depends on your definition of the word.
Very often we have debates between creationists and evolutionists. Richard Dawkins is familiar with the concept and so also AIG, and ICR and various other Bible-believing creationist organizations.
For the sake of clarity – we need to address the issue that we actually see debated using the same meaning for terms that everyone else is actually using.
Turns out – Moses was not a darwinist – not an evolutionist.
Similarly, in interpreting the Bible, it comes down to your hermeneutic. If you try to interpret everything in the Bible literally, you will run into trouble very quickly.
Turns out Adventists solved that problem many decades ago – we are historicist – we take the bible as it reads and we accept cases where obvious symbols are used such as the great dragon of Rev 12 – but we do not “insert symbols” into the text just because evolutionism “needs it”.
Also we apply something called “exegesis” to determine the cases.
Perhaps you have heard of it.
In my opinion, the key to interpretation is to seek to understand the intent of the author. I believe that the intent of the creation story is to convey that we were purposed and designed by one all-powerful God, who saw what He had made and declared it good.
That is called the “least principle” where you try to draw out the lowest most general principle and ignore all the details that do not fit your bias.
We can do the same thing with the life of Christ – reducing it all down to “God is trying to tell us that He loved us – so don’t worry about the virgin birth, or sinless life, or vicarious substiutionary death, or resurrection – the only principle you need is – God loves you. All other details are fiction”.
But such methods are nothing at all close to actual exegesis in studying the text and letting the Bible speak “instead” of bias.
Whether He created the world in 6 days or over billions of years doesnâ€™t change the beauty of that message
Sure it does. As every atheist knows – having a story that simply “plays itself” over 6 billion years is very different from “God spoke and suddenly it was”.
It is like saying “whether I actually dug that ditch with my bare hands – or the creek eroded it over thousands of years – does not matter – it all still says that I am very industrious”.
Actually – it matters a great deal. It “matters” whether it was 6 billion years or 6 days. It matters whether it was an actual virgin birth for Christ or not. It matters whether He lived a sinless life or not. It matters whether He died for our sins – in our place or not. It matters whether or not He was resurrected.
The idea that it does not matter whether the Bible is true – is an argument “necessary” if one is going to insert bias into the text and try to bend it to th usages of evolutionism. We call that “eisegesis”. But if you don’t start out with that “need” then the bending and wrenching of the text is not necessary.
â€“ that He exists, that He created us, that He delights in us. But if you insist on a literal interpretation, Genesis 2:4 states â€œThese are the generations
Because each day God “generated” or “created” some new aspect of this living planet.
Literal days are seen in “evening and morning were the first day” – a formula that is never used in all of scripture for anything but a day.
Literal days are also seen in Ex 20:8-11 that links directly to Gen 1-2:3 “SIX days you shall labor…for in SIX DAYS the Lord made”.
Impossible to get out of that iron clad linkage as it turns out.
Thus the existence of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
If you are willing to take 5 minutes to read something yourself, go to: http://www.theisticevolution.org/lit_genre.html and read the very interesting and enlightening article there.
I am curious â€“ have you ever rigorously researched the evidence for evolution?
Turns out – I have. And I have concluded that Darwin was right – so also is Richard Dawkins when they state that there is no possibility of marrying the “birds came from reptiles” 5 billion year story of evolutionism to “SIX days you shall labor…for in SIX days the Lord made”.
It is clear as day.
No rocket science necessary to see that point. We all see it.
You casually refer to it as â€œblunder, junk science and mythâ€ â€“ but can you prove it to be so?
It is well documented. Even atheist evolutionists themselve lament the 50 year long fraud (actually more like 100 year long) that we call “Simpsons horse series” that was in fact Othaniel Marshes “contrived sequence” – a seuqence that atheist evolutionists themselves admit “never happened in nature”.
A sequence touted for decades by evolutionists as “the best evidence for evolution”.
Then of course there is Osborns tooth fairy.
And there is the 30 year fraud that Ernst Haekle passed off on the public. And more recently the 30 year Neanderthal fraud was just exposed.
The fraud and junk-science used to prop-up evolutionism decade after decade is well documented as it turns out.
Evolution is provable by science
As it turns out – nothing of the sort has been proven. In fact we have atheist evolutionists themselves lamenting the case about those who invent stories from the fossil record “about how one thing came from another…stories easy enough to make up but they are not science”. (Colin Patterson – British Museum of Natural Hist).
By completely discounting established scientific fact as rubbish, you betray that your head is entirely buried in sand.
On the contrary – by employing even a modest amount of critical thinking and noticing the fraud history and junk-science methods of evolutionists – instead of merely sweeping the data under the rug – we end up with much evidence in support of the conclusion that junk-science is the core methodology behind the dogma in the false religion we know as evolutionism.
It is ridiculous to assert that by teaching students evolution that they will thereby lose their faith in God
Again your method is a bit too transparent as you seek to sweep the existing documented evidence to the contrary under the rug. Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, P.Z Meyers et al – admit publically that evolutionism did the very thing TO THEM that you claim it does not do.
Furthermore – we have had testimony after testimony on this very web site about cases where it happened at LSU in the same way.
And now we have documented case studies of both Europe and the US showing that high acceptance of evolutionism by the population is directly linked to loss of religious beliefs.
â€“ unless you force them to make a choice between believing in scientific fact and believing in God.
Not necessary. All we have to do is help them develop the critical thinking skills NOT to sweep the examples of documented fraud so central to evolutionism under the rug so that they can tell the difference between science and junk science.
Much easier than you might have at first imagined – as it turns out.
If the professors you and others have labeled (and in many cases, libeled) are indeed evolutionists and are also Christians (as all of them are), then itâ€™s obvious that belief in evolution and faith in God are not wholly incompatible.
Wrong – again.
If we were to argue that BECAUSE someone holds a self conflicted position – the position must not in fact BE self-conflicted “no matter what the details to the contrary” we do so at the expense of logic and even a modest degree of critical thinking.
Surely you are not suggesting that we abandon all reason and leap off such a cliff.
I am completely baffled as to how the texts you cited establish that creationism vs. evolution is a salvation issue.
Did you read Ex 20:8-11 because if you had you might have noticed the handy way it ties into 1Cor 7:19 and James 2 and then Rev 12:17.
James says that we are to live and act as those who are judged by the Law of Liberty in that case.
The fourth commandment does not mention salvation,
Did you notice the “inconvenient detail” that the gospel of John begins with Christ’s role as “Creator”? John 1.
Did you notice the detail where worship to God – in Rev 14:6-7 is directly connected to the language of the 4th commandment? It is one of the few places in the NT where the 4th commandment is actually being quoted.
and neither does the passage in Spiritual Gifts.
Is it your argument that “the worst kind of infidelity” is a form of “salvation”??
If so – I would be facinated to hear how that idea works out. Some details if you happen to have them.
I applaud the professors at LLU for giving students the scientific knowledge they need in order to function in the real world. Conservative Christians may not like it, but need to understand that evolution is accepted as fact by the rest of the world
It is unclear to me how Loma Linda (LLU) is getting mixed in with a discussion on LSU – (unless perhaps that was simply a typo — I know I am one with a lot of typo’s so not complaining in that case).
But if it is intended to be LLU – then is the assumption there that LLU and LSU are offering mirror programs promoting evolution as “the right answer on the doctrine of origins”??
If so – this is the first time I have heard of it.
Thanks for noticing that. Who says that posting has to be all work and no humor?
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