Comment on NCSE Report: Adventist Education in the Midst of a Sea of Science by Synapseaxion.
For a moment, Christina sounded like a sincere, loving Christian who was concerned about ET’s approach to solving problems. Then she went and undid her “loving” persona. Why, if she thought that ET’s approach was a disgrace to her church, would she go and show it to a nonSDA? Why would she solicit the opinion of someone who I would think she would be hoping to influence to accept the SDA truths that she claims to love so much? It doesn’t compute.
Sean and company, I encourage you to keep on in your role of “watchmen on the wall.” We need to know in what direction to guide our children, and if certain places promote anti-SDA beliefs, I want to know in order to avoid sending my children to those places. I’ve already lost one child to evolution theory, and would hate to lose any more through ignorance of what is going on in our schools.
Thanks for sounding the alarm.
Recent Comments by Synapseaxion
Sean Pitman, I could not have said this better!
“Science does not allow for miracles.”
I think this is an attitude that closes the door for further scientific exploration.
A lot of scientific discoveries were once considered “miracles” simply because the laws were not yet understood. So, it seems to me that science is indeed in the business of investigating miracles. Scientists do not yet have all knowledge of all the laws of the universe. Until then, “miracles” is the term used for all activity that are beyond our present knowledge of the laws by which they occur.
La Sierra Univeristy Fires Dr. Lee Greer; Signs anti-Creation Bond
@ProfessorKent: Professor Kent, by your standard for taking down websites, I take it that the Spectrum website should also be taken down? Those who participate there, for the most part, spend their time publicly abusing the leadership in the SDA Church.
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
when, in my teens, I first read Genesis, it never occurred to me that the writer could have been limited in scientific knowledge and that he thus believed that the earth was flat or that the sky was a solid bowl. Instead, I saw those terms as poetic descriptions of nature.
I suppose when Shelley wrote, “In the golden lightning of the sunken sun…” today’s scientists should also conclude that Shelley did not understand that the sun does not go down. Or to a description of crystalline waters one should conclude that the person using that term must actually think that water can never be anything but solid.
I don’t think there is any need to abandon common sense when reading Scripture. If it reads as history, it is history. If as poetry, it is poetry, and so on. Genesis, to my teenaged mind — and still today — reads as history couched in sometimes poetic terms. The forms of expression do not, to my mind, denigrate the writer’s intelligence.