Comment on Faith & Science Sabbath School examines LSU’s apology by BobRyan.
Professor Kent: Bob, weâ€™ve covered this ground over and over and over again. Do we really need to continue?
Frankly, I donâ€™t understand many of your claims. Among them:
You have clearly stated that we should simply turn a blind eye to the overwhelming evidence in support of 3SG90-91 showing that evoutionism leads to atheism. (As even Darwin, Provine, Meyers and Dawkins can be seen to admit).
Where have I stated this? I donâ€™t believe the support is â€œoverwhelming,â€ but I have never stated that we should turn a blind eye to all evidence. I think we should deal honestly with the evidence, but more importantly, I feel we should encourage young people to develop a personal relationship with Jesus
1. You are ignoring the detail points listed in my points.
2. You have suggested an “either-or” strategy where we dump one truth in favor of another “as if” admitting that evolutionism undermines Christianity just as 3SG 90-91, and Darwin, and Dawkins et al – say it does… means we must then deny the importance of a personal relationship with Christ.
A nonsequitter at best on your part.
But it might work at Spectrum.
BobRyan Also Commented
Professor Kent: 3. Both you and Brantley have tried to conflate hermeneutics (of which the H-G model is an example) with epistemology as if the two are the same thing â€” they are not. You have even stated here that you â€œbelieveâ€ that hermeneutics encompasses epistemology.
Yet Davis states that hermeneutics by definition deals just with the rules for accurately rendering the text.
Youâ€™ve pointed this out before and itâ€™s been discussed ad nauseum. You might be right
I find it interesting that “I may be right” in pointing out that Davidson’s own text states the obvious definition for hermeneutics as purely dealing with rules for rendering the text — then in classic nonsequitter style you add that if I am right in that regard then “Perhaps we are misinterpreting Dr. Davidson. Perhaps Dr. Davidsonâ€™s understanding is wrong.”
1. You never show how Davidson’s text stating that hermeneutics is just dealing with the issue of rendering the text – can be bent to mean “hermeneutics encompasses epistemology” — rather you ignore the text in regard to its statements on defintion like the plague.
That can hardly be bent as challenge on your part in understanding the words in the text regarding definitions. You simply choose to ignore them entirely.
2. You argue that by not dealing with epistemlogy – H-G “encompasses it” in your statement below –
Dr. Davidson makes crystal clear that a basic presupposition of the H-G method is â€œThe Bible is the ultimate authority and is not amenable to the principle of criticism: biblical data is accepted at face value and not subjected to an external norm to determine truthfulness, adequacy, validity, intelligibility, etc. (Isa 66:2).â€
However your quote above does NOT say “the H-G method by definition presupposes that the Bible is the ultimate authority”. Which is a not so subtle detail missing from you claim I think.
3. You claim you are not carping and complaining when observations in nature are found to be in harmony with the text of scripture on this thread — but the evidence in posts already on this discussion board indicate otherwise.
4. When I point to first hand witness accounts for the fact that evolutionism leads Christians to atheism your next non-sequitter is that once a Christian becomes an atheist due to belief evolutionism their witness should no longer be considered for discussing the evidence that belief in evolutionism leads Christians to atheism.
And when we note the 3SG 90-91 agreement with those first-hand testimonies predicting that very thing – you simply ignore it entirely.
The logical fallacies you use to spin the matter seem to be without limit in that regard.
But a point in your favor is that you are right to point out that your method is probably more effective at Spectrum than Educate Truth.
Professor Kent: Iâ€™d like to express my frustration that participants here tend to project a strong dichotomy between BLIND FAITH versus THE PRIORITY OF EMPIRICAL DATA. Itâ€™s not real, and those who repeatedly make such statements damage their own credibility.
Those like myself, Eddie, Pauluc, OTNT Believer, KrisSmith, Frederick, Phil Brantley, and others are NOT insisting on blind, empirically-based allegience to belief in Godâ€™s word.
1. I note that you have taken this up over at Spectrum with an “Open Letter to Educate Truth” published at Spectrum instead of posting your thoughts here “at Educate Truth”.
2. Since I am named in the above — I will also point out that Spectrum has kindly asked that I not respond to questions put to me at Spectrum. (It is a new slant on their “Big Tent” idea I think.)
3. Both you and Brantley have tried to conflate hermeneutics (of which the H-G model is an example) with epistemology as if the two are the same thing — they are not.
You have even stated here that you “believe” that hermeneutics encompasses epistemology. Yet Davis states that hermeneutics by definition deals just with the rules for accurately rendering the text.
4. You debate and complain on almost EVERY observation in nature found to support the Bible teaching on creation “as if” this is helping in some way.
5. You have clearly stated that we should simply turn a blind eye to the overwhelming evidence in support of 3SG90-91 showing that evoutionism leads to atheism. (As even Darwin, Provine, Meyers and Dawkins can be seen to admit).
6. In the above example you are simply twisting the context to make your case – but are not addressing the substantive issues listed in this post.
If Spectrum were not so fearful of having this response posted on Spectrum at this point — I would post it there.
Out of respect for their wishes – I am not posting there.
Faith & Science Sabbath School examines LSU’s apology
In general – take the human genome as an example. The mapping of the genome starts with a single individual – but from that one person you can determine a fixed set of coding genes (not all of which are expressed in phenotype in any one individual) that exist within the chromosomes and that are present in all individuals for that group level genome.
Hence the concept “human genome”.
As it turns out – coding genes are not the fly-by-night come-and-go-as-you-please ephemerals that many evolutionists had imagined. (damaging mutations not withstanding).
Recent Comments by BobRyan
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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