Bravus: Peer review is far from perfect. But, like democracy, it’s the worst system available apart from all the others. If you have a better alternative system, by all means please offer it. You could transform the way science is done. Just in passing, let me point out that Einstein managed to get his utterly revolutionary, opposite of science-as-usual, papers published in peer reviewed journals. Indeed, every one of the astonishing scientific revolutions we’ve experienced in the past couple of centuries has managed to break through the ‘old boys network’ – if peer review was as its been described here, that would not have happened.
Anyway, I’ll leave that issue there. It’s easy to criticize, much harder to offer credible, workable alternative approaches that will yield the dividends you’re looking for without destroying what is already good.

The point isn’t to get rid of peer review. The point is to recognize that good and useful scientific thinking or methodology doesn’t require peer review. In other words, if you base your entire belief system in science on peer review, you’re going to miss out on some good stuff. Really, you can do science, and ultimately you are forced to do science, on an individual basis.

Scientific methodoligies are in fact carried out on the individual level – ultimately. Even the notion of the value of peer review is based on scientific thinking which is used to determine the idea that peer review does in fact have useful predictive power. This determination is done on an individual basis – as you yourself have concluded.

This isn’t to say that peer review doesn’t have any value. It does – depending upon the peers of course. If the significant majority of your peers, which you know to have established a history of reliability, come to a certain conclusion regarding their beliefs as to what the evidence says, that is significant, scientifically, from your perspective and past experience. It carries with it a certain degree of predictive value based on the past success of your particular peer group.

However, it is still possible for just one individual to establish better predictive value than an entire peer group. It is also possible for a very accurate peer group to be wrong and to be extremely biased against new ideas which challenge the status quo.

Einstein’s ideas didn’t really challenge long and passionately held philosophical ideas of mainstream science – not even close to the passion held for the theory of evolution by many mainstream scientists. The theory of evolution is beleived in by many scientists as one would believe in a holy untouchable doctrine. It is believed in with a great deal of passion. Because of this, as in the current case of anthropic global warming scandal, scientists are prepared to defend Darwinism by blocking anything that challenges it in any way – even to the point of data manipulation and preventing opposing publications from entering their journals.

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com  Sean Pitman(Quote)

One further thought about peer review.

Does anyone here think that any statement known to come from Jesus would have made it into publication if the Sanhedren happened to be in charge of the “expert” journal of the day?

Would this lack of peer reviewed publication mean that Jesus was “just an amateur” theologian and shouldn’t be trusted until his ideas made muster with the Sanhedrin’s peer review process? If not, upon what would you base your trust in the theories of Jesus vs. that of the far more numerous intelligencia or “peers” of his day? – or even our day?

It seems to me that given certain arguments in this forum, especially those coming from Bravus, that it would be very foolish to seriously consider the ideas of anyone who is so soundly rejected by the established and recognized peer group of “experts” of the day… even if you personally don’t really understand the arguments of these “experts”. According to Bravus, it is simply safer to blindly trust the experts rather than to consider ideas of any one individual who is so definitively rejected by the “experts”.

In this line, it might also be worthwhile to review the most intersting story of J Harlen Bretz…

http://www.detectingdesign.com/harlenbretz.html

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com  Sean Pitman(Quote)

It all boils down to the basis of your faith. Scientists have faith just like everyone else. Faith is essentially a desire for something to be true which cannot be absolutely proven. This concept is the very basis of science. Science is all about taking limited data and predicting the future based on this limited data. Because of the limited data, the prediction of the future can never be perfectly known ahead of time. This is why no scientific hypothesis or theory can be known to be “true” with absolute perfection. There is always the potential for falsibility in science.

The same thing can be true of religious faith – it can have a scientific basis. In fact, I think all useful religions, like Christianity, have a scientific basis or rational.

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com  Sean Pitman(Quote)

Reasonable Leaps of Faith

David Read

http://www.educatetruth.com/media/video/the-creator/comment-page-1/#comment-6092

You wrote:

Sean and I have had this debate before, at Atoday in (I think) the thread following the reviews of my book. Sean is out on a limb when he states that science and faith are the same thing. I wouldn’t go that far. Our faith is reasonable, and we give reasons for it, and this has always been the function of apologetics. Apologetics supports faith and shows how and why our faith is reasonable. But apologetics can never do away with the need for faith by placing everything on the footing of evidence, reasonable inference from evidence, and logic. We will always have to exercise faith.

Not even mainstream science places everything on the footing of direct evidence. Science is based on a reasonable inference starting with very limited evidence – reasonable inference that produces a useful degree of predictive value. Of course, the scientific inference goes beyond what the evidence itself can directly support. This is why science requires a “leap of faith” that goes beyond what can be absolutely known. This is also why scientific conclusions are never 100% certain. The leap of faith is “reasonable” however, given the limited data available and the degree of predictive value that has been established for the leap of faith.

The very same thing is true of reasonable “religious” faith. When you say that faith in this or that is “reasonable”, you are basically claiming that you have some sort of evidence to back up your leap of faith. In other words, the moment you argue that you have good reasons for your faith, you are no longer arguing for the value of completely blind faith. And, any logical reason you may have can only be useful someone other than yourself if you can produce some sort of predictive value for your reason(s). What good are reasons if they can’t be tested in any sort of falsifiable manner? – if you can’t, even in theory, be wrong?

For example, I might argue that I have good reason to believe that little green men live inside the moon. You might ask what my reasons are. I might tell you that reason tells me that all the UFO sitings are most likely explained by an alien outpost close by – why not the middle of the moon? Given this as my “reason”, you’d most likely just brush me off as completely nuts – I hope so anyway? But why? Because my reason here does not remotely resemble a testable potentially falsifiable hypothesis and therefore carry no useful predictive value.

The very same thing is true of your “reasons” for believing in certain biblical interpretations or any other “reasonable” idea you may have. As far as I can tell, there simply is no way around this concept if a person really wants to be reasonable to a useful degree of predictive power. If your reasons have no useful predictive power, how do you know how reasonable you really are? – if you can’t measure or quantify your reasonableness?

In short, the scientific method is a very basic method that can be used to approach all kinds of “truth” – from the very mundane, to the truly magnificent. I think it is nothing more and nothing less than the God-given basis of all logic and reason given to intelligent minds.

Sean Pitman, M.D.
http://www.DetectingDesign.com  Sean Pitman(Quote)

SDA Scientists Really Expected to Teach 6-day Creationism?

@Bravus:
I’m actually fairly sure that the professors at LSU were doing exactly what their direct employer, the university, asked and wanted them to do – teaching the science, teaching the controversy, building students’ faith in God. It’s pretty clear from all the actual course notes, curriculum and other documents that have emerged that the approach was balanced. So your ’stealing’ analogy does not apply at that level of professors-to-university.

The administrators of LSU are also employees of the SDA Church. They are therefore not morally free to act independently of the clearly stated wishes of the SDA Church organization – an organization which has clearly stated its desires for what its paid representatives should be promoting from classroom and pulpit.

This is why Pres. Wisbey and the LSU board are just as culpable as the science professors at LSU – if not more so…

You’ve also used it at the university-to-broader-denomination level, and it’s possible there is a case there: if the assumption is that what the broader denomination wants, and has requested of its educational institutions, is the exclusive teaching of recent creationism, which evolution not even mentioned except to disparage and criticize it. I’m not convinced that that is the case.

What the SDA Church organization has stated is that teachers need to support the stated SDA understanding of origins – even in science classrooms – to include a promotion of a literal 6-day creation week. This isn’t to say that students shouldn’t be very well informed on the theory of evolution, but that SDA educators need to go beyond this level to actively promote the 6-day creation week as the best explanation of the origin of life on this planet.

To illustrate this point, please refer to the official statement of the organized SDA Church in this regard:

We call on all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the church’s position on origins. We, along with Seventh-day Adventist parents, expect students to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world.
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat55.html

This is the stated position of the SDA Church, in very clear language. And, I happen to support this statement – and put my money where my mouth is. LSU does not, evidently, share this sentiment and is not supporting the stated position of their employer.

Also refer to a statement of Jan Paulsen, President of the SDA Church:

In a Q&A session held at Andrews University Seminary Chapel August 15, 2009, Elder Jan Paulsen was reportedly given an anonymous question from an AU faculty member that said: I am someone who believes in God and creation, but not in a literal six-day creation. Should I resign from my teaching position in an Adventist University?

According to Jennifer Birney, an AU employee and student, Jan Paulsen immediately responded, “Yes.” This follows Paulsen’s June appeal “to all engaged by our church in the ministries of administration, preaching, teaching, and writing to articulate and reflect our stand as a community on Creation.”

The Q&A was called “Let’s Talk About Adventist Education” and was part of a three-day event called Fall Fellowship, which occurs annually at Andrews.

So, it seems quite clear what the SDA Church’s position is on a literal creation week and on what it expects its paid representatives to teach in this regard. I really don’t think there’s much of an argument here for anyone with an honest approach to this issue.

You need to move beyond your own assumptions and rhetoric on this issue, Sean. Who is stealing from whom, if what is being taught is exactly what should be taught?

What should be taught by an employee is what the employer is paying that employee to teach while on the employer’s dime. If the employee wants to teach something else, then that person should go elsewhere and work for someone who is actually willing to pay that person to teach what they want to teach… or work independently…

It’s a very simple and obvious concept. It should be self-evident to anyone with a candid mind.

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com  Sean Pitman(Quote)

Within their own realms, theology and science have a lot in common.

Both have a similar methodology to determining truth: Science using nature and theology using the Bible.

Both Science and Theology shouldn’t be seen as absolute truth although some people try to use them that way. Nature and the Bible are absolute truth but Science is not nature and Theology is not the Bible. Science is merely what we think we understand about nature and Theology is merely what we think about the Bible. While Nature and the Bible are never wrong (different discussion generating here on this point, but don’t get distracted from my main point by the technicalities), both Science and Theology can be terribly wrong.

Both Science and Theology have a peer review process. This has been shown in history to be both a benefit but also a curse. If the reviewers are open to new concepts and true to the data without bias, then it is a great help and prevents many weird and screwball ideas. However, if the reviewers in either Science or Theology have a preset agenda, or have biases that cause them to be untrue to the data then the peer review processs is terrible and a hindrance to the truth and new discoveries.

Consider the opposition Dr. Mary Schweitzer had with her soft tissue dinosaur discovery. Her peers rejected the actual hard data because it didn’t fit their model until it became impossible to do otherwise. Some of her peers in the scientific realm are still combatting it. In theology, you have had the same kind of peer review rejection with each new theological discovery: Jesus as the Messiah, Righteousness by Faith, Believer’s baptism, Sabbath, etc. all because it didn’t fit reviewers predisposed model and bias agenda. The stronger the emotional motivation to preserve the old model, the greater the chances for rejection of truth that goes against that model. (Luke 5:36-39 comes to mind here).

Peer review is a great tool, but we need to be aware of its limitations and keep them in mind when reviewers reject something because it goes against a popularly held philosophical concept despite the data.

Really, one can argue for and/or against evolution scientifically all day and be no closer to a conclusion than when one began. A more fruitful field of discussion, IMO, is whether the Bible is a trust-worthy supernaturally inspired document. This is a theory that can be tested and verified. If it is verified, then the Science that disagrees with the Bible is bunk and a trick or deception of the Devil. If it isn’t a trust-worthy supernaturally inspired document, then literal 6-day creationists need to move on to a more fruitful field.

How can one then test for whether the Bible is a trust-worthy and supernatural document? We cannot go back into time to accurately test to see if the patriarchs actually lived and did what the Bible says they did, we cannot see the miracles of the Bible and hear God’s voice speaking out of Mount Sinai, but there is one way that the Bible can be tested by anyone, anytime, anywhere, and see the miraculous verifiable nature of the Bible. It is a miracle that demonstrates the Omniscience and Omnipotence of God.

That testable, verifiable miracle (actually miracles) are found…

…in the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. Chief of these prophecies is the prophecy of the image in Daniel chapter 2.

These are testable evidences that demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that God knows the future in exact and precise detail. These show that God exists, and that He is the God of the Bible and thus the Bible is a true, supernatural document.  Brian(Quote)

Well, it looks to me like LSU is blowing a smokescreen at all of us and hoping it will all die down so they can continue on in the way they so obviously believe to be right. That they think they can make such a decision without reference to the rest of the church (who supports them), the parents and students, is arrogance in itself. Not exactly unexpected considering the past attitudes of the principal players in this little drama.

In my opinion, this is a direct result of teaching error to begin with. There really is no need for it and all it has accomplished is the creation of mass confusion on the subject. I know most of you out there are all for teaching the principles of evolution, but I am not. God doesn’t direct us to do any such thing and the Spirit of Prophecy has repeatedly warned us against teaching it in our institutions. Period. Let’s put it this way: We don’t study the doctrines of the other churches to prove that our doctrines are correct, do we? We don’t study into spiritualism to prove it is wrong, do we? By so doing we would be engaging the devil on his ground and we will lose if we do this. Some people, through curiosity, have done just that and wound up involved in spiritualism themselves. Same thing here. The professors have stood on Satan’s ground for so long, they have been deceived by him into believing the lie. It is purely wrong to teach this tosh to begin with.

Sorry, Shane, but I agree with Dr. Ron and it is definitely spin doctoring that is going on here. We really do have to call sin by its right name. We can all be politically correct till the cows come home, but that isn’t going to change anything. Sometimes we need to be soldiers of Christ and put our armour on…(like the song says).

I expect that my comments will not be seen here long as I am rather direct in my speech. Apparently that is not acceptable anymore. But whether forthright speech is in vogue or not right now, I need to say what is in my heart. I have huge concerns for my beloved church. It needs a radical purification to get back to the principles God laid down for it through His servants who pioneered this church. Shame on us for allowing the world to come into it and pollute it with principles that we have long known are not from Christ. No wonder so many SDA’s will not be able to stand in that time that is fast approaching.

Back to the Bible, my friends. We need to teach the 6-(24 hour)-day creationism in our schools and not give a thought to whether or not our students will be able to “advance” in their scientific fields. That is entirely the prerogative of God. He can help them advance to whatever level He wants them to be, regardless of a knowledge of evolution. We put our God and our church to shame when we look at evolution as a “required” course.  Faith(Quote)

Thus I again state: without the tree there is no fall of mankind, without the fall there is no sin, without sin there is no savior, to reject the literal creation story is to reject Jesus Christ Himself; you cannot have both, if you want to reject the sin narrative, then be an atheist, you cannot be a follower of Christ.  Shayne Vincent(Quote)

In 3SG 90-91 Ellen White argues that Theistic evolutionism is the worst kind of infidelity – because it is disquised infidelity.

If you think about that for a minute – she is actually saying that the evolutionism taught by atheists in public universities is BETTER! She is arguing that atheist proponants like Richard Dawkins that are explicit in their statements – admitting to the glaring contradiction between belief in evolutionism – vs – belief in the Bible is a BETTER form and more preferred form of opposition to Christianity than is Theistic Evolutionism.

Given that this is the case – the LSU practice of promoting that particular form of infidelity is to be considered “worse than atheism” in cases where that theistic evolutionism was being promoted outside of the SDA organization (as was the context for Ellen White’s remarks in 3SG 90-91).

So the question is — does bringing that “worst form” INSIDE the fold of Adventism – somehow baptize it and make it now acceptable for general consumption by the young adults in the Adventist denomination?

Is that what thinking parents are supposing at this time?

My second question is like unto it — if the issue really is getting to that level of “fog” and obscurity – so that people are really supposing that this theistic evolutionism idea just might be a “good thing now” – what is the correct level of response such a crisis condition would require?

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

Johnathan – you are right to post that inspired perspective.

Thank you.

But the infidel supposition, that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It makes indefinite and obscure that which God has made very plain. It is the worst kind of infidelity; for with many who profess to believe the record of creation, it is infidelity in disguise.

It charges God with commanding men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom. {3SG 91.1}

Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the Bible record, because of those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself, that the world has existed tens of thousands of years. And many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old.

These, to free themselves of difficulties thrown in their way by infidel geologists, adopt the view that the six days of creation were six vast, indefinite periods, and the day of God’s rest was another indefinite period; making senseless the fourth commandment of God’s holy law. Some eagerly receive this position, for it destroys the force of the fourth commandment, and they feel a freedom from its claims upon them.

Hmm — who would have a vested interest in “making senseless the fourth commandment of God’s holy law”?? Who?

I think we should allow people a moment to think about that puzzle.

Also we must allow for the fact that those who disregard the inspired writing above either are not aware of it — or they simply “pronounce it to be wrong”.

What other option is there?

It would be good to stop and think for a moment -

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

Johnathan – don’t feel too bad about your “4 thumbs down” response (so far as of this posting) to your post asking that SDAs “read… and consider their position” after which you just posted verbatim the 3SG 90-96 text.

I have 3 thumbs down (so far) on my “stop and think for a moment” post.

These are truly interesting times for the Church.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

After reading many of these posts, my heart is deeply saddened. Many of the posters that I am reading are coming across to me as judgmental and it seems to me that these posts are implying that its either your way or the highway. This type of judgmental attitude is so discouraging and is what is turning people away from the church.

No where does it say that believing in Sister White is a requirement for belonging to the Seventh-day Adventist Church; it saddens my heart to see people posting that if you don’t believe in Ellen White that you should not call yourself SDA. Who are you to tell these people that they shouldn’t call themselves SDA because they rated you a “thumbs down” on your posting? This type of spiritual arrogance is truly disheartening.

For instance, I can believe that Sister White was inspired by God but that doesn’t mean that everything she wrote was divine inspired.

People with this spiritual arrogance type of mentality sicken me, because it is because of these type of people that the down and out who once flocked to Jesus no longer feel welcome in our company. We seem to have created a sense of respectability amongst ourselves. Once we can overcome these flaws then only can we resolve issues like this properly.  Fredrick W.(Quote)

I have taken a moment…. a long moment to catch up on this. I believe that the writings of Sister White are inspired by God, which would then make me agree 100% with the quote found in 3SG 90 – 96. As an evangelist, Bible Worker and trainer, I also know that there are those who are newly baptized in our church and may not have the evidence shown to them as of yet that would verify MY stand on Sister White’s writings but they do call themselves SDA, which in my understanding and the churches means they believe in the second coming of Jesus and that the Sabbath is the 7th day of the week. So for those out there who do not fully understand and are yet fully able to appreciate the significance and value of her writings, I urge you keep studying!
However, for those out there having the name of the SDA Church and that are teaching it’s values… or not teaching them, I urge you to look at the heritage of this church, not only the heritage but also the validity of it as the remnant church of Revelation. in order for it to be the remnant it must have at LEAST these two characteristics found in Revelation 12:17, “keep God’s commandments” and have the testimony of Jesus” which we know is the “spirit of prophecy” found in Revelation 19:10. In order for the SDA Church to be the remnant it must have at least these two, now there are a number of other evidences out there that point to this church as well if we MUST have evidence, but i will not take the time to go into those, if you need to know, study!
Just by going off of those two, arguably the most known, I will base my answer. The first, the remnant MUST teach God’s commandments and follow them, the fourth commandment is of course to “keep the Sabbath day Holy”. If you have read my past posting on this topic you will know that it is impossible to have THEE Sabbath day if you do not have a six day literal creation, you would also know that if there is no Sabbath then already the Bible is fake there for there was no need for Christ and no need for His death on the cross, you would also then have to draw the conclusion that everything read in the Bible must be questioned, so is there really a battle going on between good and evil? If the conclusion the you draw is no, then Satan has already won the great controversy… at least in your life so far. You see if there is no six day creation, then God could not have rested on the literal 7th day. If there is no literal 7th day then there is a problem.
Now point two, Spirit of Prophecy, this a very controversial subject. If the SDA church can not use the writings of Ellen White as a source of reference for what is being taught in OUR own schools, then we are negating one of the claims to being the remnant church. Note I said one of them, there are a number of churches out there that claim to have a prophet amongst there beginning, but we are the only one that HAS one that is able to be backed up scripturally. Again if you have not found this for your self then I urge you to to find a book that has these evidences in them and pray and study! I have found that it my life, born and raised as a Seventh Day Adventist it was nothing but ignorance on my part that kept me from trusting in her writings, note I said ignorance on MY part, that may or may not be your case if you are reading this.
In conclusion, if LSU is an Adventist owned and operated institution, then it should follow the guidelines laid out by not only our church and it’s prophetess (who was instrumental in finding the location of the valley to put our two schools in), but for heavens sake the BIBLE which clearly teaches God’s way of designing. I am sure it would go over great if certain BYU teachers began to lecture on how the Native Americans are possibly not descendants of Israel. Why then do some think that they should be able to teach things that are not true just for the sake of science in our schools? If you don’t think the Bible can be proven scientifically, read Job. If our school is truly an SDA school, then those who teach in it MUST teach that which the church KNOWS to be truth. And it does not matter how many videos, or adds that anyone puts out there claiming other wise, either you teach it or you don’t. If you do, then admit it and deal with the consequences that may arise, or don’t and deal with those consequences. Eventually the truth will be told and unfolded to all, and if you are a student of the Bible you know when that is.

God bless all  Robby(Quote)

Note: This was recently posted on the Adventist Today website

The Literal Truth

Ervin Taylor Introductory Comment: From time to time, I receive materials which, upon reflection, it seems should be shared with those who read this blog. Such materials serve as a window through which we can all better understand the great challenges that the SDA administrative clergy have in maintaining balance in the Adventist Church in North America.

The following is by a Mr. Ron Spencer of Portland, Oregon. He describes himself as “a devout member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who has studied deeply into the relationship of science and faith.” He states that he is also a long-time reader of both Adventist Today and EducateTruth.

He noted that when he visited EducateTruth he was “appalled at the anemic position taken by those who developed that web site. The dangers from science FAR TRANSCEND the teachings of Charles Darwin! In the following short paragraphs, [Mr. Spencer states that he will] outline that threat and what we need to begin to do TODAY in Adventism to remedy the situation. Call it a Modest Proposal, if you will.” By the way, he addressed his email to “Elder Taylor.” In the interest of accuracy, I should explain that I was ordained many years ago as a local church elder.

Science was a very big deal back in the late 1950s.

Those were the days of the Red Scare and Sputnik, and from the top echelons word had come down: “Democracy needs better scientists to stop the Red Tide.”

So my earnest little (5’1″) Adventist school teacher followed orders from Washington and introduced us early to Pythagoras, Euclid, Einstein, Galileo, Newton, and a footnote or two on Charles Darwin.

Darwin was the Great Satan, so to speak, but some of the others were dangerous, too. Pythagoras, we were told, “worshipped numbers” and “did not believe men should marry women (the word “homosexual” was not used, of course).

Einstein too was shown to be dangerous. We were warned that Einstein’s ideas “teach that the universe is billions of years old.” That Einstein was of Jewish descent explained it, of course. Satan was using him to destroy faith in Jesus. So my stalwart little teacher said little about Einstein, except that his views were nonbiblical and therefore dangerous. But I still got a kick out of his smile, in pictures.

She told us that Galileo was heroic, for he had stood up against that great menace, the Roman Catholic Church. But his views on gravity were troubling, as were Newton’s. For if the sun was not literally created until the Fourth Day of Creation, how could the earth have been rotating around it in literal evenings and mornings of time?

If the stars were not created until the Fourth Day, how was the earth held in space for three full days? The Newtonian concepts of immutable gravity were clearly at odds with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, and the teacher warned us not to accept their views as the “best explanation.”

She said that more probably, the Throne of God in Orion is the Center of the Universe, and that the earth was held in place by God in this way, until He created the solar system and the rest of the universe. “This is a better explanation, and Ellen White’s writings support it,” she smiled. I was convinced.

Then, very quietly, in a conspiratorial stage whisper, she warned, “Some Adventist scientists are saying that the sun, moon, and stars were not created on the Fourth Day, but became visible that day. These are dangerous thoughts. The Bible says clearly, ‘God made’ the sun, moon, and stars that day. That means that the universe as we know it did not exist until the Fourth Day. Only God, heaven, and the earth existed until that moment. We simply cannot accept, as Adventists, that the universe has existed for billions and billions of years.”

Then she explained an alternative theory that I accepted then, and still hold today. It’s all so logical: “When God created the universe, before the entrance of sin, light obviously traveled much, much faster than it does today. Sin slowed light down. That’s always the nature of sin.”

What a relief! Certainly God inspired the thinking of this wonderful little lady!

She went on to tell us, “God will not allow sinful man to walk on the moon. Mrs. White has told us that sin will not be allowed on other planets. So if you ever hear that man has reached the moon, don’t believe it, any more than if your dead grandfather appeared by your bed at night. Satan wants to deceive us, and he will try to fool us by making it appear that man has reached the moon.”

Sure enough, Satan did just that about 10 years later. I have been surprised by how many Adventists have been deceived. But I had been forewarned by that little angel of light, my second-grade teacher. July 20, 1969 was the Great Hoax of the Century.

I have remained firm in my faith, though many so-called conservative Adventists now believe that the universe is many billions of years old; that the sun, moon, and stars simply became visible, on the Fourth Day of Creation, and that Orion is neither the center of the universe nor the probable seat of God’s throne.

Most now have been led astray by Einsteinian views, including the myth of moon landings.

How can Jesus return to gather us to heaven while so many of the very elect are so deceived? Our universities must help return us to the earlier days when our belief in the literal truth of the Bible was absolute.

I am not a scientist or academician, so what I say, I say modestly. Here is my proposal:

1. Teach Adventist students in our schools that modern science is riddled with fallacies and deceptions.

2. Publish science texts that cast serious question on the views of Darwin, Einstein, Galileo, and Newton, and that prove that the lunar landing did not actually occur.

3. Terminate and if possible disfellowship any Adventist teacher who at any time allows for the possibility that these men’s views have any valid content whatsover.

4. Develop a coherent scientific explanation, based on the Bible record, to offer a true picture of how (1) the speed of light has slowed down dramatically, since the introduction of sin, (2) how God—not matter—is the ultimate gravitational force in the universe, and (3) how Darwin’s views, junk DNA, and Carbon decay can all be explained within a 6,000-year time frame by showing how the incidence of mutations and carbon decay have accelerated since the entry of sin, in direct and inverse proportion to the downgrading of the speed of light.

I would be happy to spearhead this effort, though I lack traditional scientific credentials. But I am a fairly smart guy, as you can tell by my writing, and I’m not clueless. I believe that I have been called to stand in the breach at such a time as this, in defense of the literal truth. I am calling on Adventist scientists to stand up at such a time as this and lead the charge!

Even so, come Lord Jesus!

Ron Spencer
Portland, Oregon  Ervin Taylor(Quote)

Ervin Taylor: Note: This was recently posted on the Adventist Today website
….

Erv,

If you’re going to paint me and those at EducateTruth as being a bunch of nut cases, why not at least attack my actual views instead of building such obvious strawmen misrepresentations? Why this attraction to tabloid-style cheep shots? I know you’re looking for increased readership over there at AT, but what kind of readers?

The SDA position says nothing about the age of the universe. It only says that the creation week, as described in the Bible, is a real historical description of a literal 6-day creation week. Here on EdTruth I and several others have pointed out that the SDA position on origins does not counter the idea that the universe may be very old indeed. I myself hold to this position and the Bible also suggests this idea – as in the book of Job where the Sons of God sang together and the creation of this world.

The SDA Church is also unlike the Catholic Church during the “Dark Ages” in that the SDA Church does not think to take on political power or civil authority. All are free to join or to leave. However, as with any viable organization, if you expect to get a paycheck from the SDA Church, you will be expected to do as the Church asks you to do as a paid employee/representative. Suggesting that all should be paid regardless of any ideas which counter the stated position of the Church is the suggestion of pure anarchy.

So, if you think the SDA Church is wrong, great, say and do what you want, but don’t expect to get paid for it from the SDA Church…

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com  Sean Pitman M.D.(Quote)

On the contrary, Sean: young life creationists who have posted here are roughly evenly split between young and old universe views. That fact in itself speaks to some of the challenges of the literalist position, but you should also not confuse your own personal position on this issue with the official SDA church position (which, as you correctly note, is silent on the question of the age of the universe).  Bravus(Quote)

Since Erv Taylor is so enthusiastic about promoting Ron Spencer fiction instead of answering any of the actual questions raised about this topic on this web site — we will take a look at what his storytelling tries to pass off as if it were remotely factual.

@Ervin Taylor:

Most now have been led astray by Einsteinian views, including the myth of moon landings.

How can Jesus return to gather us to heaven while so many of the very elect are so deceived? Our universities must help return us to the earlier days when our belief in the literal truth of the Bible was absolute.

I am not a scientist or academician, so what I say, I say modestly. Here is my proposal:

1. Teach Adventist students in our schools that modern science is riddled with fallacies and deceptions.

2. Publish science texts that cast serious question on the views of Darwin, Einstein, Galileo, and Newton, and that prove that the lunar landing did not actually occur.

In the happy fiction above – we have Darwin craftily placed along side Einstein and Galileo and Newton “As IF” evolutionism was on par with physics.

What a riot that happy fiction!

However this is exactly what evolutionists believe when they make their by-faith-alone claims for darwinism.

How instructive then that – Darwin – the very celebrity they choose to follow instead of “actual science” or “the Bible” or the 1Cor 12 doctrine on spiritual gifts pertaining to Ellen White’s ministry — Darwin himself stated emphatically the glaring gap between evolutionism’s doctrines on “origins” vs Christianity – and thus he rejected Christianity because there is in fact no marriage possible between Christianity and Darwinism.

How “instructive” that our theistic evolutionist friends are so willing to leap off that cliff — all the while shouting “Darwin was wrong about this marriage not being possible”.

You gotta admit that the constant “darwin was wrong” message that our Theistic Evolutionists keep preaching about Darwin’s understanding of the origins doctrines found in evolutionism and just how contradictory they are to the Bible doctrine on origins — sounds funny given that they want to preach “darwinism is every bit as sound as the laws of physics”.

Notice that when we study gravity — we need not “imagine that birds came from reptiles” to discover the inverse squares law. And while the force of gravity can be measured “time after time after time” — the much imagine genome morphing for eukaryote based life forms resulting in complex genomes evolving from primitive genomes has yet to be “observed” or “measured” or brought into the realm of science beyond Collin Patterson’s descriptive “stories easy enough to make up but they are not science” (Patterson’s words).

And if he actually thinks that “the earth rotates around the sun” (instead of orbiting the sun) as Erv quotes Spencer – then it is no wonder that he also thinks that Darwinism has the same proven science behind it as the laws of physics.

Incredibly we find this brilliant statement in the text Erv Taylor is so happy to promote

Erv quoting Ron Spencer’s story –

For if the sun was not literally created until the Fourth Day of Creation, how could the earth have been rotating around it in literal evenings and mornings of time?

1. The earth does not rotate around the sun – it orbits the sun.
2. The earth does not orbit the sun every “evening and morning” – more like 365.25 evenings and mornings.

3. The actual text of scripture says “evening and morning were the first day” — and on the first day God created light.

That means that earth was rotating — once every 24 hours and it means that there was a point light source on one side of earth.

The fact that God does not tell us what that point light source was — is not “the green light for storytelling” that our evolutionist friends like to imagine when they talk to themselves about this Bible text.

Discovering the blatantaly obvious fact that neither the Bible nor Ellen White nor any SDA fundamental belief argues that the Bible’s “TWO GREAT LIGHTS” created on day 4 “are really a zillion-and-TWO” is left as an exercise for the reader.

I am starting to wonder if possibly Erv Taylor’s real goal on this subject area is nothing more than a desire to provide comedic interest from time.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

@Bravus:

Bravus says:
December 3, 2009 On the contrary, Sean: young life creationists who have posted here are roughly evenly split between young and old universe views.
… you should also not confuse your own personal position on this issue with the official SDA church position

That is misleading. There is no “Even split” between Adventists here who believe God created many worlds before even starting to create life on earth – and those (yet to be identified posters) who suppose as does Spencer’s imaginative storytelling that God created all other worlds on “day 4″ of our own creation week.

Oddly enough even Spencer himself admits he does not believe any such thing. So far from “evenly split” you have yet to show us “one”.

It is instructive that when Taylor attempts the “reductio ad absurdum” logical fallacy – you alone appear to fall for it hook line and sinker on this web site (so far). I am guessing Taylor has better success at AToday.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

On December 4th, 2009 Seanpit says:

Erv Taylor:

The statements that I particularly would like to note have been posted on this blog by Shane Hilde and Sean Pitman. In a November 14 posting; Mr. Hilde stated that “The [Adventist] church could be dead wrong on this issue [Young Life Creationism]; however, it is the official position [of the Seventh-day Adventist Church] and as such people who choose to be employed by the church are obligated to uphold that position.” Sean Pitman commented “If an [Adventist] scientist, or any other [member of the Adventist Church] for that matter comes to this conclusion [that traditional Adventist Young Life Creationism is not tenable for both theological and/or scientific reasons] why stay in a Church organization that has stated fundamental positions that go so counter to the ‘scientific’evidence?”

Here and on the EducateTruth.site, Sean Pitman in particular repeats over and over again, as if he has adopted this dictum as his personal mantra, the dogma that Adventist faculty and clergy are, first and foremost, professional salesmen and saleswomen hired to push a particular brand of religion. They are like sales representatives of the Nike Shoe Company hired to push only the Nike brand of shoe. If they think some elements of another brand of shoe is better, according to Sean, the only choice they have is to quit Nike and go to work for that other shoe company.

It is a fact that pastors and teachers are indeed employees. They are beholden to do what their employer has actually asked them to do. As it currently stands, the General conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has in fact asked all pastors and teacher to publicly support its stated position on origin – specifically with regards to the promotion of a literal 6-day creation week.

“We call on all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the church’s position on origins. We, along with Seventh-day Adventist parents, expect students to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world.”

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat55.html

Now, you may not like the fact that the SDA Church has actually asked all of its paid representatives to support this position. However, it is a fact that the SDA Church, as an organization has done so. Upon what moral grounds, then, does anyone who is a paid employee of any organization have a right to go against the clearly stated lawful wishes of his/her employer while taking money from that employer?

If you disagree with the SDA Church – great. Just don’t expect to get paid for your efforts.

Erv:
Sean seems to think that a religious community should be evaluated on the same basis as a capitalistic for-profit company-a very strange position. He also appears not to realize how arrogant is his claim that “Not all who call themselves “SDA” are really SDA in that they do not support the basis of SDA organization – i.e., the stated positions of the SDA Church as an organization.” He seems to believe that he has some God-given insight to determine and proclaim who is and who is not an Adventist and even who is, and who, is not, a “real” Christian. We can wonder who gave him the mandate to make such pronouncements.

Anyone can claim to be anything. That doesn’t mean that a person really is what he or she claims to be. Actions speak louder than words… etc.

This is not to say that I make any moral judgements here. Just because I don’t think you’re a “real SDA” in any meaningful sense of the word doesn’t mean I think you’re anything other than a morally upright upstanding individual who I would not be at all suprised to see in Heaven someday.

Even so, I do find it hard for someone who has publicly admitted, as you have, that you know of no good evidence for God’s existence… to take on the label of “SDA” – outside of social reasons perhaps. It just isn’t a very meaningful claim on your part. It doesn’t give a person who doesn’t already know you an accurate idea of who you are or what you really believe.

You know, it’s Ok not to be SDA – right? There are some very good agnostics and even atheists in this world who I personally believe will be in Heaven someday. This does not, however, qualify a person as belonging to a certain type of belief system – certainly not as a paid representative of a particular organized Church like the SDA Church.

You may even be “Christian” as far as your moral outlook, but that doesn’t mean you subscribe to all of the doctrinal statements of Christ – such as his clearly evident support of a literal interpretation of the Genesis account and others which you do not hold to be true like He evidently did. You actually think your knowledge and your modern scientific outlook are superior to that of the One who claimed to have personally seen and talked with Abraham and to have personally seen Satan fall from Heaven like lightening. Yet, at the same time, you somehow claim to be a believer in this same guy who didn’t know what he was talking about on anything that could actually be tested as part of physical reality?

Upon what basis do you believe His metaphysical claims if Jesus was so wrong regarding his claims concerning the physical world? What about the Virgin Birth? Do you believe that? What about His resurrection? Do you believe that? If so, upon what basis basides blind faith or strong emotion or desire? If you see no good evidence for the very existence of God, how can you possibly argue for the validity of Jesus’ claims which also cannot be directly tested? And, if you don’t believe in these claims of Jesus, why are you a “Christian”? What would that claim actually mean? – that you’re just a social Christian like you’re just a social Adventist? You like the community, but not any of the actual SDA beliefs or many of the Christian beliefs?

Really, I’m confused by your claims. You’re redefined so many words so that few actually know what you mean when you use them. Because of this you aren’t really communicating effectively. Even if this is not deliberate on your part, many people who aren’t already familiar with your actual beliefs hear you say something that you really don’t intend to convey. So, why not use words that everyone will clearly understand? Why be so opaque? Why not be more transparent in your use of words and labels?

Also, I want to make it clear, yet again, that while beliefs do not save a person (motive does), this doesn’t mean beliefs aren’t important or valuable when it comes to making life better here and now. Also, it doesn’t mean that maintaining order within an organization isn’t important as well. Without the maintenance of order and discipline within an organization, you simply won’t have the organization very much longer. Order and discipline within an organization, even a church organization is perfectly fine and even necessary, as long as the individual is completely free of any civil penalty when it comes to joining or leaving…

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com  Sean Pitman M.D.(Quote)

@Bravus:

Bravus says:
December 4, 2009 I don’t have the time and energy to go back through the hundreds or thousands of posts on this site, but I recall at least half a dozen people who posted and were certain that the entire universe is 6000 years old. If you’re unable to remember them you might like to do the search… I trust my memory. Not necessarily a 50/50 split, I’ll grant you, but definitely more than 2 or 3 people have posted in favour of a young universe…

hmmm so you admit you have no data to back up your wild claim about Adventists here denying that other worlds were created before this world — your accusation of the form

Bravus said -
“Sean: young life creationists who have posted here are roughly evenly split between young and old universe views.
… you should also not confuse your own personal position on this issue with the official SDA church position

If you cannot point to such a thing even being true – perhaps you could simply name a dozen or so of them to show just how close this is to ‘evenly split’ – because I believe the “answer is” that you cannot name more than one – IF that!.

I have seen many SDA posts here affirming that other worlds were created before this world (that is not too surprising for anyone who actually read Ellen White’s statements on that topic).

Or maybe you have imagined an SDA poster here who rejects Ellen White but insists that all planets in the universe were created after earth was created — and indeed after plants on earth were created — and as you say “condemns anyone who differs”.

Currently you are left with factless accusation followed by more factless assertion of supporting data that simply tells us how much you “trust your memory” over supplied observable fact.

How convenient.

How instructive for the unbiased objective reader.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

(Sean Pitman quoting Erv Taylor — but I don’t know where Taylor’s post is for this quote)

Here and on the EducateTruth.site, Sean Pitman in particular repeats over and over again, as if he has adopted this dictum as his personal mantra, the dogma that Adventist faculty and clergy are, first and foremost, professional salesmen and saleswomen hired to push a particular brand of religion. They are like sales representatives of the Nike Shoe Company hired to push only the Nike brand of shoe. If they think some elements of another brand of shoe is better, according to Sean, the only choice they have is to quit Nike and go to work for that other shoe company.

The quote of Erv Taylor above – goes to the heart of the LSU issue which is WHY did the Adventist church even START Adventist colleges and universities to begin with?

WHY did they divert funds from missions and evangelism to start teaching institutions to begin with?

WAS it because they felt that biology, physics, chemistry, math and history were being neglected? Was it to raise everyone’s understanding of Physics to “Adventist physics”??

Was it the claim that “Adventist Calculus” was so superior to everyone else that we should divert funds from evangelism so we could start teaching “Adventist Calculus”???

Was the idea that Adventist science teachers, history teachers, math teachers had such a technologically advanced understanding of the sciences, art, language and history that the world would be harmed if not instructed by them in basic sciences?

Is that why the church diverted funds from missions and evangelism to build teaching institutions as Taylor seems to wildly imagine?

Or was it simply to create “marriage institutions” where young adventist adults could meet and marry – with the confidence that most of their fellow students in school would also be Adventist??

Taylor appears to be shocked by the idea that an actual “adventist message” might be the purpose of an Adventist school.

I am shocked that his grasp of Adventist history has fallen to that level.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

This is a tragedy of immense proportions that our SDA professors are teaching evolution contrary to some of our fundamental beliefs. Why would we observe the Sabbath and where did the Sabbath come from if we evolved over millions of years? One of the reasons our church came into existance relates to its unique Sabbath message.
I would like to ask the La Sierra Board and the President, why creation-believing and creation-studying-teaching professors like Dr. Walter Veith are not employed at La Sierra? Dr. Veith was Professor of Biology teaching evolution at Stellenbosch University in South Africa. He was my husband’s professor in Evolution (at the Medical School) and he was an atheist. He lost his job at that University because he became Seventh-day Adventist and believed in the Seventh-day Sabbath and Creation. He went through a very rough time before he got a position at a university where he could openly be a Creationist.
Dr. Veith now has an entire series of lectures showing the scientific evidence for Creation, like the geological column, which evolutionists have no answers for. (See amazingdiscoveries.org for his personal testimony and seminars). It is absurd to say that there is no scientific evidence for Creation.
So we could tell Dr. Veith that he lost his job for nothing, that he could have become SDA and still have believed in Evolution, and kept teaching Evolution at Stellenbosch University. His persecution was all in vain and for nothing… (if we can believe in evolution and be SDA).
La Sierra faculty, do you feel that it is honest and transparent to not believe and teach some of the basic Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA Church and yet receive a salary from an Adventist institition?
I am sorry, I am just a simple little Bible-believing Christian. If we start believing the opinions of men, whose opinions are we going to follow? I choose the Protestant principle that many gave their blood for: the Bible and the Bible alone. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other.
Even if we symbolize Gen 1 Creation, the entire Bible is full of Creation, that the world came into existance through His word. John 1 (‘not one thing in all creation was made without Him’), portions of Psalms (‘by the Word of the Lord were the heavens made’), portions of Isaiah, many verses in the New Testament would all have to be thrown out of the Bible, to not believe in Creation.
My husband, a Family Practice Physician, and I, have four teenagers aged 18, 16, 15 and 13. Obviously this issue at La Sierra and other SDA institutions (we have heard from firsthand accounts) will affect the choices our teenagers make for university. We want to put our young people into an institution that has integrity, and does not try to cover the real education the students are getting, one that is totally different from the name and foundational belief system we thought the institution had.
It is our prayer that La Sierra and other SDA universities will return to unadulterated Bible truth that this church is built on, that there will be a true revival of primitive godliness there, so that God can pour out His Spirit and blessing on His genuine, truth-believing, loving people. We will continue to pray…  Elma Heldzinger, B.A., Ed. Primary(Quote)

@Elma Heldzinger, B.A., Ed. Primary: Walter Veith is one of those (would like to insert an unfriendly adjective here) giving creationism a bad name (e.g. like Kent Hovind, who is at least not an Adventist)
Just watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zvYTpf0qC0 (or try any other of his lectures *not* about creation vs. evolution). A nutcase is a nutcase, even if he once was(or even still is) a professor.
Secret societies, the Illuminati, the UN,… since being a child in a small adventist church I always wondered how so many of those those know-it-all types telling stories about all kinds of weird conspiracies could have ended up in our church.

Mark  Mark Houston(Quote)

Sorry I am sort of jumping away from the topic of Walter Veith and Kent Hovind. I find this interesting, in the theory of evolution humans supposedly evolved from some lower life form. Which would indicate that we are getting more intelligent. So my question is this, how do they explain the Mayans? Or the Egyptians? Or the writers of Job? Most would not argue that the Book of Job was written at least a few hundred years ago (even though Biblical Scholars know it was written many many years before that) but just as well modern astronomy is now catching up with Biblical teaching. Or why is it that the human only seems to utilize around 10% of there brain potential? People think we are getting smarter cause we make computers and gadgets, not smarter just lazier, most of these things that have been created by us are just taking jobs away from real people and forcing the human race to be lazy. I remember when i was able to memorize all of my friends phone numbers, or do some complex math problems in my head, but with the cell phone and advanced calculators I am finding myself slipping… maybe it is just me. Maybe I am the only objection to evolution.
Still, when something evolves doesn’t it only evolve into what it needs? Life on this planet is degenerating, not getting better. Evolution would point to the opposite.

Makes me wonder why there is even a question whether to teach or not teach this clearly scripturally and historically unsupported theory.  Robby(Quote)

On December 9, Elma Heldzinger posted a comment in which she asked “Why would we observe the Sabbath and where did the Sabbath come from if we evolved over millions of years”?

Speaking for myself, I observe the Sabbath because the God of the universe asked me to; because I show Him my love by spending time in communion with Him; because the more I spend time with Him the closer and stronger my relationship is to Him; because I love Him.

I believe that we will never have all of our questions about science and the way God created the universe answered while we are still on Earth. But I also believe that those answers become less important the more I focus on and get to know the One who has the answers. The biblical example I want to follow is Nathaniel. When Phillip told him that he had dound the Messiah, Nathaniel asked “Can anything good come out of Nazareth”? Phillip did not try to answer his question. He simply invited Nathaniel to “come and see.” When Nathaniel came and met Jesus, suddenly the answer to his question was not relevant. When we come to Christ, we do not get all our questions answered, but more importantly, we meet and get to know Truth incarnate. Personally, I believe that is more important than an answer to a scientific question.

After reading articles, commentary, and postings regarding the issues related to La Sierra, Creation, Evolution, etc. I would suggest that we all (myself included) remember that Christ asked us “to love one another” because “by this all shall know that you are my disciples”. We do not get to pick who our “one anothers” are. They include not just those we agree with or find acceptable but also those whom we disagree with; those who we find unacceptable; those who make our blood boil. How we interact with those who we consider our enemies, even though they be children of God who Christ died for, is the most important issue. Perhaps when we treat those people we disagree with the way Christ did, then we will be able to prove that there really is a Creator. After all, He is still at working creating His character in us.  David(Quote)

@David:

After reading articles, commentary, and postings regarding the issues related to La Sierra, Creation, Evolution, etc. I would suggest that we all (myself included) remember that Christ asked us “to love one another” because “by this all shall know that you are my disciples”. We do not get to pick who our “one anothers” are. They include not just those we agree with or find acceptable but also those whom we disagree with; those who we find unacceptable; those who make our blood boil. How we interact with those who we consider our enemies, even though they be children of God who Christ died for, is the most important issue. Perhaps when we treat those people we disagree with the way Christ did, then we will be able to prove that there really is a Creator. After all, He is still at working creating His character in us.

When you read terms like “disguised infidelity” in 3SG 90-91 as it addressed the topic of evolution – do you view that as being in perfect harmony with the “Love one another” principle you have mentioned above – or is that an example of violating that principle?

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

David: Perhaps when we treat those people we disagree with the way Christ did, then we will be able to prove that there really is a Creator.  

I fear that many would reject Jesus for being “unchristlike.” Was Christ being “Christlike” when He cleared out the temple of it’s traffickers? Was it Christlike for Him to pronounce the woes on the Pharisees?

Was John, His disciple being unloving when he said, “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” 2 John 10, 11.

Is it Christlike to ” have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them”? Eph 5:11.

Was Elijah being unChristlike when he prayed for 3 1/2 years of drought causing widespread poverty, famine, and death?

Was it Christlike for Paul to say to Elymas, “O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.” Acts 13:10, 11.

It is true that we need to be Christlike. We need to be full of love. But we must be wise. I am a physician. Different diseases require different treatment. Some serious diseases require surgery with wide and extensive excision. Others require nothing more than a reassuring smile. The incompetent physician would give a reassuring smile to the melanoma. We must not be incompetent spiritual physicians.  Phil Mills(Quote)

I would just like to let it be known that I agree with Dr. Phil Mills, in that different “treatments” are needed for different problems. Of course we must realize that Christ “uttered His most scathing rebukes with tears in His eyes” and too often we, of unconverted human nature, are hormonally controlled in our rebukes and tend to take a certain satisfaction in the discomfort we bring to others in our holding them up to the magnifying glass of truth. God’s LOVE consists of a PERFECT balance between Justice and Mercy – the balance point being the Laws of Life. In the Power of the Holy Spirit and the Righteousness of Christ, we will NOT be too harsh or too gentle in our handling of those who depart from the foundation of truth. There are situations where the “rod” must be applied in love (being sure that we are not taking satisfaction in the discomfort of others). The key to “mercy” is a spirit of repentence. Where there is no repentenct, then “mercy” will manifest as “justice”. As Sr. White said about the Cross – that the Cross allowed God to save the fallen in JUSTICE and “punish” the unrepentant in MERCY. Let us ask God continually for the Gift of HIS LOVE, to allow us to maintain the proper BALANCE of Love in all our relationships and words and deeds, for Christ’s sake and for the sake of the Father’s Name.
Michael Welch,
Asst. Prof. Sahmyook Univ. Seoul, Korea  Michael E. Welch, MPH(Quote)

If the 6-day Creation is not to be taken literally, how can the 7th-day Sabbath be taken seriously?  wesley kime(Quote)

If the 6-day Creation is not to be taken literally, how can the 7th-day Sabbath be taken seriously?  

Exactly Dr. Kime. But, how has LSU gotten so far away from actually believing the Bible? What kind of “hands off” approach has been use, for seemingly years or even decades, without the Board or someone speaking out?  Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)