New NAD president: ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean we won’t deal with issues
@Professor Kent: I don’t know if it is the majority position. As far as I know there is no official position on this particular detail.

New NAD president: ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean we won’t deal with issues
@Professor Kent: We know from Genesis 8:2-3 that the waters were receding and in proceeding verses that the mountains began to show. So when we read in verse 9 that “the waters were on the face of the whole earth,” we can safely assume the author is not literally speaking of every inch of land being covered. If water was covering the whole planet with the exception of some mountain peaks, how would we describe it? I think it’s quite reasonable to say that the whole earth was covered with water despite knowing that some peaks are showing.

Contrast this with Genesis 7:9 where all the mountains are described as being covered. Here there is no qualifier. A plain, straightforward reading gives us every indication that the whole earth, even the mountains, were covered by water. Chapter 8, however, qualifies “the whole earth.” I think the context of these verses makes the meaning quite clear.

I’ll have to get to your all life forms were destroyed idea later. Time for bed.

New NAD president: ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean we won’t deal with issues
@Ken: Whether the earth (inorganic material) is older than life on the planet, doesn’t make much difference to me theologically. I lean toward the idea that earth and all life on it were created within the 6 days. I think it’s a moot point and hardly worth arguing over.

LSU student: ‘Apostates or Apostles’?

Defining just how we learn and how we teach, especially in the field of science at this institution is important. ‘Different people mean different things when they use the term evolution,’ said Dr. Gary Bradley, a professor of biology and genetics at La Sierra. He explained that for most conservative Christians, the word ‘evolution’ carries the usual anti-God connotation. However, for a scientist, the word represents the process by which all kinds of alterations and modifications happen in our world. Dr. Bradley believes that the Creator God designed the world with the ability for evolution to occur, and urges everyone to learn as much as they can about our Lord’s created universe. ‘There is abundant evidence that living things change. Thus evolution is well documented and well supported in the scientific world. It is unconscionable for a science student to remain ignorant of this fundamental aspect of life.’

What kind of evolution is Dr. Bradley speaking of when he says God designed the world with the ability for evolution to occur? Different people mean different things when they use the term evolution, says Bradley, but he doesn’t define what he means. This is exactly the type of vague, slippery language that is used in order to cloak what these professors believe and how they’re teaching evolution at LSU.

Indeed, the word “evolution” does mean many things to many people, so it suspect when Bradley makes his observation and then makes a vague, undefined comment about what he believes. Remember this is the same Bradley who was quoted in INSIDE Higher ED”

‘It’s very, very clear that what I’m skeptical of is the absolute necessity of believing that the only way a creator God could do things is by speaking them into existence a few thousand years ago,’ Bradley added. ‘That’s where my skepticism lies. That’s the religious philosophical basis for what I call the lunatic fringe. They do not represent the majority position in the Church, and yes I’m skeptical of that. But I want to say to kids it’s OK for you to believe that, but it’s not OK for you to be ignorant of the scientific data that’s out there.’

There is an obvious difference between what the Seventh-day Adventist Church views evolution and Bradley. LSU just doesn’t get it. Everybody already knows what’s going on there, but they continue to pretend otherwise.

Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@krissmith777: Do mean like mainstream papers, written by evolutionists are exclusively peer-reviewed by evolutionists? Yes, I’m aware that there are creationists that write for mainstream journals and get published and perhaps there a small handful that peer-review too, but the percentage, I would guess, is very small. So small in fact that the point would be moot.

The journal is created by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, so I’d be surprised if it was being peer-reviewed by evolutionists

Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@Alexander Carpenter: Great comment Alex! I’m trying to compare our journalism to an article you posted at Spectrum May 29, 2009, in which you, Bonnie Dwyer, and Jared Wright referred to David Asscherick as a “college dropout” twice in the same article (1). What was that all about? It was pretty obvious to your readership. A pathetic attempt to mislead and attack someone who actually supports and believes in the Seventh-day Adventist message. You then made the false assumption that he didn’t support Adventist higher education. I believe he took it upon himself to personally call you and point 10+ errors that were in the article. Do you remember that call Alex? Wow, that must have been embarrassing. Yes, we regret not contacting Dr. Ness before we posted his lecture, but at least we got the facts straight.

You’re really reaching with the old article hyperbole. I was personally aware of the article last year and I believe a few other readers here were too, because I remember it being posted in the comments. It’s particularly relevant now in light of the claims coming from PUC. Raising the “we’re creationists” flag high and mighty, when in actuality the impression these evolutionists had was quite different.

We average 32,000 hits per month. And that’s from this year. Sorry, people are still showing a very strong interest in this topic. Dwindling? Not by any amount worth clicking over here to leave a fish bowl comment. Come on Alex, you’re more connected to the church than this aren’t you? Your worldview in regard to origins is, aside from being unbiblical, a minority within the world church.

What’s ironic about the situation with PUC is that you work there and you’re not exactly a creationist. I wouldn’t be surprised if inwardly you’re ashamed to hear PUC ranting and raving about what a creationist Dr. Ness is and the rest of the biology department.

Sorry, you’re way off on this one. This issue is huge in the church and it’s not going away anytime soon. Chances are the underlying issues could cause a serious split, which is actually already occurring, in our church.

1. http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/05/29/unravaling_witch_hunt_la_sierra_under_seige

Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@Professor Kent: “Old news” is a bit relative in this case. Yes, this occurred two years ago, but the professors haven’t changed nor has the way they teach evolution.

Your last paragraph only proves my point. You make wild assertions about there being no evidence while ignoring the evidence being presented. For starters what do you say to the testimony of 70+ students in 2004? Or the testimony of three students in 2009? The statements from the professors themselves. The syllabi?

You baffle me Kent, you really do.

No evidence? Common on. I’d say I hope you’re joking, but you’re not. You really believe that.

Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
This is almost funny. The world quite easily sees how evolution is being taught in our own universities, but a small, but quite vocal group, just doesn’t get it. It seems, more often than not, that those who just don’t seem to see things for the way they are at LSU tend to be more sympathetic toward a hermeneutic that is contrary to the Seventh-day Adventist Church.