Comment on UNST/UHNR 404B Syllabus (LSU) by BobRyan.
Sean Pitman M.D. says:
December 27, 2009 The History of Evolutionism in the Adventist Church:
Also interesting in this regard is a story of the support of â€œprogressive Adventismâ€ to include a belief in the evolution of life on this planet over hundreds of millions of years of time, by prior LSU president Lawrence Geraty. Geraty was in full support of retired GC vice president Richard Hammill in his conversion to an evolutionary understanding of origins over vast periods of time. His published comments are most interesting in this regard (and explain a great deal as to why LSU has hired professors who actively support Darwinian thinking as they do), as is the overall story of Evolutionism with the Adventist Church:
First of all – thanks to Sean for sharing that link.
Second – after reading that article it is very easy to see why devotees to evolutionism imagine that the SDA position is shifting to a popular denial of the Bible and acceptance of atheist evolutionist doctrines on origins.
BobRyan Also Commented
UNST/UHNR 404B Syllabus (LSU)
hmmm.. I posted “on Christmas day”.
Guilty as charged!
But as we all recall – Ellen White calls the act of infecting the Church with evolutionism via Theistic Evolutionism “the worst kind of infidelity”. 3SG 90-91
It has also been posted on these threads that She says that innaction by the people of God in a time of spiritual Crisis is viewed by God as the “worst kind of hostility toward God”.
So now – we have your complaint that something posted in defense of God’s stated views on origins given in the Bible “was posted on Christmas day”.
I leave it as a not-so-difficult exercise for the reader to work through the task of sorting out those values for themselves.
UNST/UHNR 404B Syllabus (LSU)
Sean points us to a Pastor in the LSU area that illustrates the thinking “from the pulpit” that had to have been there for an LSU type problem to have grown to the point that it is today.
Gary McCary, Pastor
Tierrasanta Seventh-day Adventist Church
11260 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard
San Diego, CA 92124
…for Adventists, the fear is that the Sabbath will lose its specialness if Genesis 1 is interpreted metaphorically, and therefore Adventism will be rendered impotent.
Is this necessarily the case? Does our faith depend on biblical literalism? There are many in Adventism who want to see our universities purged of evolutionary biologists. These conservatives donâ€™t want evolution taught in any way, shape or form in Adventist institutions. Are you worried that your child might learn of Darwin and his theories?
I have a suggestion. Iâ€™m sure itâ€™s been considered before. Why canâ€™t evolutionary biology be taught in biology classes for what it isâ€”the current â€œscienceâ€ on the whole issue of existence?
Here is a facinating thought – why not “baptize evolutionism” as if that kind of “revealed truth” among true devotees of evolutionism’s dogma is actually “science” – indeed pure science??
Why not “pretend” that “stories easy enough to make up – but they are not science” (to quote atheist evolutionist – Colin Patterson) is really “just science after all”???
Pastor McCary suggests that we all “start believing” that evolutionism is in fact — “science” instead of the junk-science bad-religion that it is so easily seen to be.
Pastor McCary continues —
And why canâ€™t 6-day creationism be taught in religion classes for what IT isâ€”the historic â€œfaithâ€ of the biblical literalist.
And here it gets even better. McCary then suggest that we all start pretending that the doctrine on origins actually found in the Bible is just the faith of some whacko Biblical literalists that just so happens to be directly contradicted by real science.
He suggests that if we all put on our beeny caps and start “pretending” that the happy fiction he suggests above were true – that all would be much nicer for the evolutionists trying to promote their docrines on origins from inside our schools.
Each viewpoint is â€œtrueâ€ based on each sidesâ€™ presuppositions. I want my children to learn what the science is on the subject, AND what the faith-position is. Does this not seem reasonable?
His conclusion is that our children should be taught that FAITH is directly contradicted by science — (kinda like the flat earth and geocentrist universe that the Catholic church imagined in the dark ages was directly contradicted by actual science).
Hmm – yes I am sure that is exactly why we established SDA teaching institutions — to tell our students that good solid science has proven that our faith is dead wrong.
Why havent we thought of this before??!!!
That way our church schools can be a carbon copy of the atheist “all-for-darwin” public school systems — and we get to call it all “higher learning”.
Certainly our institutions of higher-learning shouldnâ€™t be considered institutions of lower-learning! Or are we afraid that our young people will leave the church if they learn the current science?
I like that conclusion – “are we afraid” that evolutionism will do to our students exactly what Darwin SAID it did to his view of Christianity, exactly what Dawkins today SAYS it did to his view of Christianity, exactly what Provine SAID it did to his view of Christianity, exactly what Meyers SAID it did to his view of Christianity, exactly what Europe now SHOWS that it did to Christianity in Europe.
McCary seems to be asking if we actually “pay attention” to what Evolutionism’s doctrines on origins does to faith in the Word of God.
I think many here are ready to answer that question with something like “Yes Pastor McCary we are awake – we NOTICED what it did to Christianity in Europe and we noticed what Darwin SAID it did to HIS view of Christianity”.
Sadly – McCary seems to imagine that most of his readers “will not notice”.
Geoffrey Barnes says:
December 26, 2009 In my humble opinoin I believe this website is doing more harm than good. Some of you obviously donâ€™t know individuals who you are very quick to pass judgement upon. Bob Ryan, you should be ashamed of yourself for dismissing all of those scientists are â€œSDA devotees of all-evolution all-the-time bible-is-less-than-trustworthy adherantsâ€.
A more careful review of my full comments on the course work would have served your argument much better just then.
I recommend attention to the “inconvenient details” – I named the examples of guys who are fully outted in terms of their embrace of evolutionism. I also stated the names of others – whom I did not have details for – so you need not “imagine” that I condemned all participants. (even though your no-attention-to-detail style response may be easier and quicker, it is not as compelling)
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