@Steve Billiter: I have just been in email conversation with …

Comment on Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism by BobRyan.

@Steve Billiter:

I have just been in email conversation with Dr. Geraty and he does support the literal 7 day creation week, its that he doesn’t really see the Biblical evidence for such.

So then… that is when you fell out of your chair and rolled on the floor laughing??

So “Dr Geraty you believe in a literal 7 day creation week in direct opposition to what you believe the Bible says?? How did you come to this position that you now claim is not even in harmony with scripture?

Did you have a dream a direct revelation? Are you aware of our need to test the spirits to see if they are from god?”

Is Dr Geraty “aware” that the “SIX DAYS you shall labor…for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE…” language talks about a 7 day week?

Is this now “news” to the leadership at LSU??

How did we get to this sad state?

I believe that EducateTruth has improperly misrepresented Dr.Geraty in this manner:

“Beyond this, he has not considered such a fundamental doctrinal belief to be all that important to the SDA Church and has hired professors to teach at LSU that he specifically knew would undermine the Church’s “fundamental” understanding on a literal creation week”

That’s quite a statement, just how are you going to prove that? it seems to me that EducateTruth is jumping to conclusions and making unprovable assertions without the evidence.

If Geraty hired the current batch of evolutionists in the biology and religion departments – including the ones that came from Walla Walla AFTER the North Pacific Union forced them out of Walla Walla – then “he has something to answer for”.

Geraty said:
“That is thoughtful of you to contact me so as not to misquote me (as the header in Educate Truth does!). First of all, I accept and support the wording of our Sixth Fundamental Belief because it uses the words of Scripture to which we can all give affirmation. Second of all, I personally presume that Genesis 1 refers to an ordinary week, but since it does not say that explicitly, I am glad to give those interpreters who wish to interpret it differently the freedom to do so. In other words, I support the evangelistic outreach of the church that is inclusive, rather than exclusive.

Ahh – here we have Fritz Guy’s “big tent” idea.

But also – we have a sense of confusion on whether “God” is one of those that Geraty is willing to differ with – since God himself summarized the Genesis 1-2:3 events into legal code (in Ex 20) using the very 7 day week language that Geraty claims is not proper to impose on the Genesis 1-2 text.

Perhaps Geraty is willing to “include God along with professor Bradley” letting each of them have their own opinions on what Genesis 1-2 means – while Geraty asserts that the text specifies “no such thing” and imagines that the text simply leaves the question open 4 billion years or 7 days – not much of a difference to speak of in Geraty’s “big tent”??

Geraty said:
If a believer affirms the doctrine of creation, I’m all for including him or her in the fellowship without making him or her interpret Genesis 1 exactly as I or others wish to interpret it.

Certainly we would not fault others for failing to see things as you “wish” to see them. That is one point I think all can agree on.

In the mean time we have “God’s wishes” in Ex 20:8-11 that hammer a 7 day week timeline on the Genesis 1-2:3 like an iron clad template.

And we have even more clear “language” on “God’s wishes” in 3SG 91 via special revelation in that regard – spelling out the damage that is done by “wishing away” the text of Genesis 1-2 into “billions and billions of years”.

Geraty said:

When it comes to the integration of faith and science, there are difficulties we may not be able to resolve before the Second Coming, nor is it necessary to do so.

Agreed.

In addition we have the gap between junk-science (you know – “evolutionism”) and actual science ( you know – biology, genetics, chemistry, physics etc).

Geraty
Ellen White counsels us to use both science and Scripture, rightly interpreted, to reach our best understanding of truth. Since scientific theory is changing and developing rapidly with new evidence all the time, I am willing to be patient–but then I am not a scientist

You reference Ellen White as if you are actually reading what she said on the subject of this debate – all the while carefully sidestepping her claim to a direct revelation from God on the subject of evolution in 3SG91 and the fact that your university is pursuing a course that she claims was shown to her as “disguised infidelity”.

Now possibly it is “not your wish” to address any more of what she said than is convenient – nothing more than would be helpful in the rosey picture you have in mind at the moment.

However – quoting her on the subject of real science (and not junk-science fraud or wild speculation ) and applying it to evolutionism’s doctrines on origins – is to be less-than-genuine on the point – wouldn’t you admit?

so these things are not the pressing issues for me that they apparently are for Educate Truth and its supporters.

How amazing that engaging in what 3SG 91 calls “disquised infidelity” is “not a pressing issue” for LSU leadership.

it is contrary to all I did to make sure we had professors who were supportive of the SDA Church and creationism.
God bless, Larry”

How shocked and outrages Larry must be at this point to find that his beloved institution has taken the current “all for evoutionism” road.

How active he must be in working with the LSU board of directors and with Ron Wisbey and with Fritz Guy trying get this thing turned around.

How active he must be in gathering leaders together to take action so that the very thing he claims he has tried NOT to put together – does not continue to runover the work of a life time that he had previously put into LSU.

Or is it possible that this is lip service after having already let a few horses out of the barn?

Time continues to unveil the real story. And it is a sad story that does not fit the nice pictures that some people like to paint.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan Also Commented

Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
In the article above – Geraty promotes the idea that all the T.E’s at LSU should be regarded as Creationists so they can better promote their goals unhindered.

Dr. Geraty has told me personally [Sean Pitman], twice now in public forum, that all LSU professors are “creationists” and believe in God.

I believe his strategy worked for a number of decades.

in Christ,

Bob


Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
@Professor Kent:

Once again, bear in mind that macroevolution (= speciation by conventional definitions; creationists often resort to other definitions) cannot be expected to happen naturally during a human lifetime, unless there is a dramatic polyploid or parthenogenetic event (or something similar) that results in immediate reproductive isolation and speciation. Note that I use the word “naturally.”

Hint: Punctuated Equillibrium.

Every birth of every individual in every species is “a million years” away (or 10 million if you prefer) from “something” in it’s ancestoral tree according to evolutionists. The problem is not “time” when it comes to the evolutionary “story”. The story does not “lack time” it lacks “evidence”.

With P.E you are supposed to get a hopeful monster saltation (or nearly that) rather than a mature eye or eyelid that slowly forms over 10,000 years.

If on the other hand, you want to argue that we see 1000’s of species with their eyes in various stages of “forming over a 10,000 year window” go ahead and go out on that limb.

in Christ,

Bob


Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
Geraty said “Second of all, I personally presume that Genesis 1 refers to an ordinary week, but since it does not say that explicitly”.

I have seen him make the claim that he believes in the literal 7 day week of Genesis 1-2:3 several times. He is being consistent in making that claim here.

Geraty then says

It is also slander to say that I “hired professors to teach at LSU that I specifically knew would undermine the Church’s ‘fundamental’ understanding on a literal creation week.” There is no evidence for that and it is contrary to all I did to make sure we had professors who were supportive of the SDA Church and creationism

Ok so either Geraty did not “know” that Erv Taylor was an evolutionist or did not know that Erv Taylor was lecturing at LSU.

Either Geraty did not “know” that Bradley was a diehard evolutionist or did not know that Bradly was a biology professor at LSU.

Either Geraty did not “know” that Grismer and McCloskey were evolutionists or did not know that they were hired to teach biology at LSU while he was president at LSU.

Given Geraty’s following statement

personally presume that Genesis 1 refers to an ordinary week, but since it does not say that explicitly, I am glad to give those interpreters who wish to interpret it differently the freedom to do so. In other words, I support the evangelistic outreach of the church that is inclusive, rather than exclusive. If a believer affirms the doctrine of creation, I’m all for including him or her

It is more “likely” that “he did know” about these evolutionists – but he had ways of imagining to himself a “big tent” concept (not at all out of harmony with the Spectrum Magazine he promotes) that could easily ‘big tent’ these people right into the LSU fold.

It is also “likely” that he had one or two discussions with his own “Fritz Guy” assuring him that the evolutionist option was perfectly compatible with the Bible and the Fritz-Guy-intent of the 27 Fundamental Beliefs.

Therefore his supposed “shock” that when others look at the way this story pans out they see a Geraty that is not at all opposed to hiring and retaining professors and guest lecturers that are “in the tank” for evolutionism – is somewhat mystifying.

in Christ,

Bob


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
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.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

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”.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
Gentlemen,

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.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
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.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
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