I was waiting for this to happen. Our Professor …

Comment on Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’? by wesley kime.

I was waiting for this to happen. Our Professor Kent has arpeggioed himself into the position of saying God created evil, and says Adventists say so (if there’s one thing Adventists insist it’s just the opposite, exactly the opposite; I know, I’m one), and jumps all over Sean and “our MDs” (rather generic typecasting, alas; I’m one of those too) for denying it. This is getting more ironic by the minute. But that’s where you end up when theistic Evo leads you on. Darwin himself never said God created evil – he didn’t believe in God. For once, I’m glad he didn’t. But our declamatory theistic Evoeans, academics of more than one department, say they do, believe in God, yea, have faith in God, and the less they believe in the Bible, the more faith in God, faith to the uttermost utmost. So they are free, yea obliged, to apply a twist that even Darwin didn’t: Evolution turns out to have been employed by God Himself as the mechanism of Creation, the special theistic twist, and, now back to Darwin, any evolution, requires, to make it work, death and elimination of the weakest (upon whom Christ at the Mount of Blessings pronounced a blessing), which, by theological definition, is – presto! – evil. And God created pain, suffering, death, Evil – and saw that it was… take over, LSU.

Recent Comments by wesley kime

Brilliant and Beautiful, but Wrong
Brilliant, beautiful, and so right! Speaking of your presentation at LLU recently. Great to see you and your family (especially my namesake, Wes. God bless! WK

Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Bob Helm: Dr. Sanford is very familiar to most of us. He was invited to speak at LLU several years ago and I and a great many were privileged to hear him.

Evolution from Space?
Hats off yet again to Sean for pursuing this topic as a scientist should, no nonsense, and in it’s proper setting — as a revival of one of the ancient ideas recently upgraded as a desperate alternative to the increasingly compelling intelligent design data. I had occasion to review panspermia a few years ago and as is my wont I found it more amusing than scientific. If you would like what was intended to be a satirical response to panspermia and other related curiosities you could check out: http://www.iessaythere.com/black-hole-humor.html
Meantime, Sean’s article is of far more cogent worth.

The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
As he has done on this site many times, Sean in his line-by-line-item response to C. White (not EG or EB) has, to my mind, clearly enunciated the issue and resolution.

When all the hermeneutics, quoting, and arguing and inordinately judgmental riposte are over, it comes down, as I understand it, to two things: 1) Whether the 7th day Sabbath (whether enunciated in the famous 10 commandments or otherwise) is still valid, and 2) Does the grace obtained by the vicarious sacrifice by the shedding of Christ’s blood or other divine process too deep for us to understand in this life, cover every sin automatically and without ado, altogether passively on our part, or is it only on condition that we first totally and deeply accept it? Other details always hassled forever are distractions.

I accept that I must accept it, wholly, actively, even with agony, with my whole being.

Nobel Prize Winner “Blinded by Belief”: Retracts 2016 Paper on RNA Self-Replication
The confession that Szostak made is boggling! If anybody has been on a “journey”, Szostak has! And this analysis by Sean of that journey and its implications is truly awesome. It should be published widely… I’m surprised nobody has commented on it yet. No comment could do it justice.

I’m reduced to being simply curious. Was there talk of rescinding Szostak’s Nobel? I propose another Nobel category: a prize for most honest scientist, and Szostak would be the first winner. Few other scientists would be eligible, particularly among evolutionary scientists, who collectively seem to have suffered a blindness mutation. He should be TIME’s Man of the Year.