I am not a “scientist” in any sense of the …

Comment on LSU propaganda by Lydian Belknap.

I am not a “scientist” in any sense of the word although I did take General, Organic and Food Chemistry (can’t remember the exact name of this course–after all, I graduated in 1949 and some of these details are somewhat vague at this point!) My field of study was nutrition and child care.

While interested in, and total belief in, the Biblical account of our beginnings I simply did not have the time to delve deeply into the subject after graduation. I was very busy mother rearing five children, helping my husband with his business and caring for his elderly parents for over 20 years plus helping out in Sabbath School and other church activities. After all one,often very tired, woman, can only do so much!

But I am very interested–and concerned–over the “raging debate” about the teaching of evolution in some of our institutions (LSU seems to be the focal point right now.)

The thing that concerns me a great deal at this point is the idea that there is no scientific information to support “Intelligent Design.” At least that is the statement I’ve heard numerous times on this site. I was not at the General Conference in Atlanta so was unable to hear for myself things that were said by the defenders of our belief in creation but from what I have heard (in a round-about way) there were apparently some of our scientists who were rather weak in their own beliefs–they believed it “by faith” but really had no scientific support for it. If this is truly the case I am absolutely appalled!

In other places on this site I have suggested that these scientists (and any others who want to hear the “Other Side of the Story”) subscribe to “Acts and Facts” a monthly publication by the “Institute for Creation Research.” To my knowledge this is an independent organization and not the “child” of any particular denomination. It is staffed by credible scientists whose one mission in life is to show scientific evidence that there HAD to be an Intelligent Mind behind the origin of our world. Their magazine is free (at least I’ve never had to pay for my subscription) and packed with all kinds of research–and they have many books and other publications ranging from small books for children to very serious publications for scientists.

I do not mean to be critical but I simply do not understand is why so many of OUR scientists do not seem to be able to send out the same clear, unapologetic message. We have all sorts of books on most of our other Fundamental Beliefs but, as far as I can tell, nothing much on this topic. Why?

I have been an Adventist all of my life and I can never remember reading much of anything scientific on this subject in any of our publications supporting our belief in creation. Somehow it was never a problem to me–the Bible said it and I believed it (still do!) But is glaringly obvious that we need, and have needed, for many years the clear trumpet sound of scientific evidence. Please don’t try to tell me it isn’t available–ICR seems to be able to find it and we certainly should also! After all, we are supposed to be the “head, not the tail” in all things scriptural!

This is not some “minor” point that we can simply overlook. God has not left us to fumble around in the dark on this issue and if we are to be a people ready to meet the Lord in the clouds–and if we are to be able to show other inquiring minds that we truly have the final message to a dying world–we had better get our act together and be able to meet this heresy head on with solid science to back up our belief in Genesis1 and beyond!!

Fellow Believers, we do need more faith–and we do need much prayer but I strongly believe God expects us to stop just fumbling around on ths issue and DO SOMETHING POSITIVE in this situation–starting with our scientific personnel , LSU and all up and down our whole system. Otherwise Jesus just may have come and gone and we will be left behind with our mouths open wondering “what happened?” (After all, we ARE Laodiceans you know!)

Recent Comments by Lydian Belknap

A New Endowment Program for Adventist Education
So here I sit–a “very old lady”–totally confused and not having a clue as to whether to donate or not–or where to donate if I should.

As things stand now I think I will just continue putting my own little amount to my current “missionary out reach” of buying “Steps to Christ” and “Who Do You Think You Are?” and passing them on to the clerks in the stores where I shop or other people I meet that I think would like them.

If and when you folks decide on what, how and where to help in this very worthy project let me know and I’ll do what I can then.

A New Endowment Program for Adventist Education
I just noticed that there is such a program in place in northern California but I would want one that is nation wide. After all, if our kids aren’t already in danger here in the southern union also (as well the rest of the US) it’s most likely only a short matter of time till they will be.

A New Endowment Program for Adventist Education
I am far from a wealthy person who could and gladly would donate large sums of money to such a program but I could and would gladly donate some if such assurances were solidly in place. I’m sure there are many “old folks” like me “out there” who feel the same way. (Is there already such a program in place? If so please post all needed information.)

The God of the Gaps
While browsing my rather voluminous file of articles to “save” I ran across this jewel—I think it is worth saving and thinking about–especially the last statement by Darwin himself:
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

While Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy — a plausible mechanism called “natural selection.” Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – Slowly But Surely…

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, “…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.” [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an “irreducibly complex system”. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called “the hammer,” a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we’ve made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist

Michael Denton wrote, “Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.” [5]

And we don’t need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin’s day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” [6]

1. Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” 1859, p. 162.
2. Ibid. p. 158.
3. Michael Behe, “Darwin’s Black Box,” 1996.
4. “Unlocking the Mystery of Life,” documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.
5. Michael Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” 1986, p. 250.
6. Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” 1859, p. 155.

I don’t think Sean could have said it better himself!

Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
Sean, I guess I “bit off more than I can chew” when I subscribed to some of your other options.
All I can handle is the ^way it used to be”–like this column still is. Please put me back to this mode of information and I will be very happy. Thanks.