@Frederick: Then by the same definition the theory of evolution …

Comment on Faith & Science Sabbath School examines LSU’s apology by Shane Hilde.

@Frederick: Then by the same definition the theory of evolution cannot be science. Obviously we observe some microevolution occurring, but nothing more.

The Bible does make claims that can be potentially falsified, such as a recent creation and world wide flood. If it can be shown by the weight of evidence that life did not originate relatively recently and that the earth was not covered in water, I would consider the claim falsified.

We can’t show that things were created within six days using the scientific method or how exactly things were created.

I would insist that biology professors present the evidence for a short chronology of life on earth and a world wide flood. We (the church) believe there is reasonable evidence for these things and they also confirm the biblical creation.

This business about “creation is not science” is irrelevant. It’s undefined. What does that even mean? Does that mean that there is absolutely nothing about creationism that isn’t falsifiable, testable, etc?

Look at the claims of the Bible regarding creation that actually are testable. We already know you can’t test some things. This isn’t new, nor is anyone here trying to push it as science.

Shane Hilde Also Commented

Faith & Science Sabbath School examines LSU’s apology
@Professor Kent: Is is possible to fine some evidence for most anything? If I only have some evidence supporting creation, and there is a mountain of evidence in favor of evolutionary processes, then on what basis would I continue to believe in creation?

Professor&#32Kent: they actually exemplify heroically the historical-grammatical hermeneutic of Sola Scriptura–taking God at his word rather than forcing God to pass a test of science.

A key thing to remember though is these men you’re talking about already assume the Bible to contain a historical account of creation and that it is true and reliable. But let’s back up a bit and ask, why do they believe the biblical creation account is true?

There are many people who have not arrived at the conclusion that the Bible is a divinely inspired book. How do you convince them the biblical creation is true? If all you have is some evidence to present against a mountain, how can we expect them to accept our belief?

There’s no need for loaded rhetoric such as “public scorn.” We’re talking about leadership positions within an organization, so there’s really no need to make it appear personal.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to employ professors who are faithful to the beliefs of the church. It should be standard practice.


Faith & Science Sabbath School examines LSU’s apology
@Frederick: Nobody is basing anything off of Geim. He’s merely sharing his opinion etc.

We certainly don’t assume that the mainstream interpretation of biology supports Adventist’s view of creation. It obviously does not.

We do believe there is plenty of good/reasonable evidence that confirms the biblical creation. Is creation scientific? That really depends on aspect of the theory you’re speaking of.

All we’re asking is that professors who choose to teach science at an Adventist university present the evidence supporting creation (ie short chronology, universal flood, etc).

Adventist’s do not see science and religion as two separate fields, but complementary to each other. Why wouldn’t we present our doctrine on creation in science classes? It has direct bearing on it.

If you don’t believe their is evidence for the biblical creation, why have any faith in the Bible at all? Why remain Adventist?


Faith & Science Sabbath School examines LSU’s apology
@Professor Kent: I would hope that whatever you believe in is based on what you consider to be the weight of evidence. Why believe in something if the weight of evidence says otherwise? I think it would be great to have biology professors who no only believed in the biblical creation, but believed it because the weight of evidence was in favor of it.

It doesn’t make any sense to hire professors who say they believe in the biblical creation, but just don’t see any evidence for it?

I don’t understand that position. If I thought the weight of evidence pointed in another direction, I’d be inclined to follow it. Not hold on to my belief as truth, yet admit there’s no evidence to support it.


Recent Comments by Shane Hilde

Private Recorded Conversation Prompts La Sierra Resignations

Ron&#32Stone&#32M&#46D&#46: then he “accidentally” recorded the private meeting, right?

That’s exactly right. He must have not bothered to play it back. I think the meeting was a couple hours according to the LSU news release. But basically he didn’t know he had recorded him and the others and then posted it without checking his recording.


The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist

Eddie: Doesn’t LSU’s administration deserve at least a little bit of credit?

I think so. There are some very dedicated individuals on the board.I have no doubt they’re doing everything they can to address this issue.


Blasphemy of a Different Kind
@Ron Stone M.D.: I agree. LSU has not been a shining light for our church. That’s unfortunate. That might be the case for other schools as well.


Former board member never talked with biology faculty
@Alexander Carpenter: I would readily agree since Educate Truth supports the biblical account of creation and disagrees with the handling of the topic in the biology department. This was a political move by Wisbey to gain power on the board. He now has three less who oppose him.


Former board member never talked with biology faculty
@David Read: Board members and even former board members are not allowed to discuss what has happened in board meetings. The only thing I confirmed with Tooma was whether she had conversed with the biology faculty and she made it very clear she never had. She was only presented with the joint statement and wanted to support it. This statement was seen as a big step for the biology department because Wisbey had been keeping them silent for over two years and they were now making constructive advances to dialogue with the church. I disagree with what they said, but I think it’s great their talking now. I suspect Wisbey isn’t happy with the biology department. It wouldn’t make any sense for him to only be upset with the board members since he allegedly embraces what they are doing. Doubtful though given his reaction and double standard.