The Reptile King

By: Sean Pitman, Dr. Warren Ashworth, and Pastor Ron Cook

July 12, 2001

On the front cover of the spring 2011 edition of La Sierra University Magazine there is a wonderful photograph of Dr. Lee Grismer smiling at a gecko in his hand and titled, “The Reptile King”.  The article goes on to detail Dr. Grismer’s intense passion for nature and for God and recounts several of Grismer’s thrilling experiences discovering new species in exotic locations around the world.

The only problem, of course, is that the article says nothing about Dr. Grismer’s ardent opposition to the Adventist position on origins and his active support and promotion of mainstream evolutionary theories in his classes. While the article does describe Grismer’s love for God and his experience of God through nature (and even his baptism into the Adventist Church), all wonderful things indeed, what about the fact that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has asked all educators in all Adventist schools to “uphold and advocate the church’s position on origins”? and for our students “to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world”? (reference)

Dr. Grismer believes and teaches that living things on this planet have existed and evolved over billions of years through a process that involved the death and untold suffering of sentient creatures through countless generations. He teaches that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs and that whales evolved from land-dwelling mammals, etc… all in line with mainstream evolutionary thinking (see slide from one of Dr. Grismer’s LSU class lectures below). There is no mention in any of Dr. Grismer’s lectures of any counter evidence to mainstream evolutionary thinking, the age of life on Earth, or any empirical support for the Adventist position on a recent creation by God of much of the diversity and adaptability of living things within six literal days.

Given Dr. Grismer’s significant charisma and evident popularity with his students, his evolutionary beliefs and teachings carry a great deal of weight with nearly all of his students. Most come away from his classes shaken in their understanding and belief in the Adventist position on a literal creation week of all life on this planet within fairly recent history. Many leave Adventism behind, or, if they do stay in the church, do so as social Adventists who really do not believe in several of the basic doctrinal positions of the church. They somehow meld a form of theistic evolutionism with Christianity in line with Dr. Grismer’s own beliefs and influence.

I am well aware of the influence of Dr. Grismer’s teachings, and of several other science professors at LSU who hold and teach similar views. I’ve spoken with many students who have taken courses from these professors.  Even members of my own family have been dramatically affected by such teachings and have either left the church or no longer subscribe to various official doctrinal positions of the church.

It seems, therefore, rather brazen of LSU to actively promote a professor who is so actively undermining the bedrock fundamental positions of the Adventist Church within our own school system.  Does the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church take no notice of such subversive activity?  or is our leadership simply too powerless or intimidated by the intelligentsia within the church to do anything or even to say anything of any real substance to address this serious issue within many of our schools and universities?

While LSU has been among the most bold in its open defiance of the clearly stated goals and ideals of the Adventist Church, as an organization, this is by no means a unique situation to LSU. If the unique contribution of the Adventist Church to the reality of the Gospel message of hope is to remain viable, something must be done to address the magnetic influence of those who are most ardently opposed to our doctrines and who are undermining the order and government of the church from within.

At the very least the Adventist Church should be active in warning parents, students, and the church membership at large of these problems within our schools and of the risks involved with sending our young people to be placed under the influence of those like Dr. Grismer.  At the very least the members of our church deserve greater transparency as to what can be expected from so-called “Adventist Education” which is often purchased at great price and personal sacrifice by those who are entrusting their greatest possessions on this Earth into the hands of an institution that bears the name, “Seventh-day Adventist”.

Please follow and like us:
3
270
37

256 thoughts on “The Reptile King

  1. Faith: Professor Kent–look at the two above quotations from the two postings you have recently put up. First you claim there isn’t a shred of evidence of wrong-doing and then you say you have admitted there is such evidence. Do you wonder why people get confused with your position?

    I don’t wonder because the answwer is simple: you didn’t read my comments closely? There is no contradiction. You simply do not take the time to develop well-informed conclusions.

    Faith: I have seen the postings of the then current students of Professor Brantley telling us what a group of ignorant morons (my words–but the spirit is there) we are to believe in Creation. This is a student who graduated in 2011, from what I understand. That, to me, is proof that the problem is not fixed.

    Did this student explain when and where they arrived at this belief? No. For all you know, the student reached this conclusion before college. In calling it “proof,” you merely prove your own reliance on assumptions. One of the most respected evolutionary biologists is a graduate of Southern Adventist University. Have you concluded this is “proof” of evolutionary indoctrination at Southern?

    I’m sorry, Faith, but you




    0
    View Comment
  2. The problem is that certain individuals here do not have a correct view of God. They do not understand His nature, character, or purpose. Even though sufficient aspects of these have been revealed to us for our existence here on earth.

    They try to picture God as themselves. And how would they treat things in this world?, they ask. Well, if they were God, they’d let people go shopping and out to eat on Sabbath. Because they (God) would want people to be happy, they surmise. They also would not hinder man from having a glass or two of alcohol while watching grown men chase each other around in circles at a racetrack on Sabbath. After all, make mankind happy, they presume…

    And so, they can’t believe that a loving God would allow animals to kill each other. Because if they were God, they surely wouldn’t allow that to happen.

    And so they start down the slope constraining both God AND science to fit their worldview.

    In it all they fail to see that there is a “mystery of iniquity”. In it all there is a “mystery of Godliness”. And such folk would never be caught saying “I don’t know” to any question posed to them. It’s always, “We don’t know yet” or “Science has yet to prove…”

    Theistic evolution is nothing more than an attempt to place the mind of man into the place of God.

    Oh the egos……..




    0
    View Comment
  3. I’m sorry, Faith, but you are not using proper judgement in examining the “evidence.” As a further example, you cited the article at the top of this thread as evidence:

    Faith: “Dr. Grismer believes and teaches that living things on this planet have existed and evolved over billions of years through a process that involved the death and untold suffering of sentient creatures through countless generations. He teaches that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs and that whales evolved from land-dwelling mammals, etc… all in line with mainstream evolutionary thinking (see slide from one of Dr. Grismer’s LSU class lectures below).” Since no one–not even you–denies this to be the truth, I take this as evidence.

    This quote about Grismer is a statement of opinion from the three authors of the article. In other words, it’s hearsay. The slide simply describes what is found in the General Biology textbooks used at every SDA university. There is no quote from Dr. Grismer because the authors did not attend the lecture and do not have a transcript of what Dr. Grismer said. They do not know what he said about the slide and neither do you. The very same slide could be shown at Southern and Southwestern, but it would be inappropriate to claim they are teaching evolution.




    0
    View Comment
  4. From my previous posting: “I have seen the postings of the then current students of Professor Brantley telling us what a group of ignorant morons (my words–but the spirit is there) we are to believe in Creation.”

    Sorry, Prof Kent, I made an error in this posting. I did not mean to refer to Professor Brantley’s student, but Professor Bradley’s student. And yes, I would expect that four years in university would affect what the student believes. I believe that the student’s attitude is directly relating to what he/she learned at LSU. So many students have lost their way as a direct result of what they learned at LSU in biology or religion classes that I think that a fair assumption.




    0
    View Comment
  5. John Kannenberg: Theistic evolution is nothing more than an attempt to place the mind of man into the place of God. Oh the egos……..

    I agree. So too is any form of creationism based on human reason and science ahead of scripture. The SDA Church officially rejects this form of creationism that is supported by Educate Truth.




    0
    View Comment
  6. Prof Kent: “I’m sorry, Faith, but you are not using proper judgement in examining the “evidence.”

    Yes, I am not surprised you feel that way–I expected exactly this response. However, in my book it is abundant evidence and I still stand by my previous posting. By their fruits you shall know them is good enough for me. I feel that decades of youth leaving the church in droves after their “higher education” is an indication of something being terribly wrong. And it is terribly wrong to indoctrinate SDA students with evolution which is diametrically opposed to our SDA beliefs in our SDA university.

    I am comforted somewhat by the fact that you haven’t an answer to some of the other proofs I have given. However…maybe I am a bit premature in feeling so, perhaps you just aren’t done disecting me yet. Carry on, Professor. 🙂




    0
    View Comment
  7. Jeff, I’m glad you’re dissociating yourself from Phil’s ideas about the relationship between Bible truths and real world practices.




    0
    View Comment
  8. Faith: And yes, I would expect that four years in university would affect what the student believes. I believe that the student’s attitude is directly relating to what he/she learned at LSU. So many students have lost their way as a direct result of what they learned at LSU in biology or religion classes that I think that a fair assumption.

    Okay, let’s then be fair. I had a student who took a summer course from me. He graduated from Southern Adventist University’s biology program. He told me that in his last year there he accepted the full teachings of evolutionary theory and quit believing in God. I was keenly disappointed to learn this, and worked during the summer to help him see a different side to the evidence. Of course, this means that Southern Adventist University teaches theistic evolution. Right?




    0
    View Comment
  9. Faith: By their fruits you shall know them is good enough for me.

    Southern Adventist University produced one of the most respected evolutionary biologists. As you reasoned, by their fruits we shall know them: Southern Adventist University indoctrinates evolutionary biology. It’s good enough for you, and it’s good enough for me.




    0
    View Comment
  10. Faith, I’m finished with our discussion of evidence. You and I obviously have very different concepts of what constitutes “evidence,” and I am disturbed at the thought of you ever serving on a trial jury.




    0
    View Comment
  11. PK: “Okay, let’s then be fair. I had a student who took a summer course from me. He graduated from Southern Adventist University’s biology program. He told me that in his last year there he accepted the full teachings of evolutionary theory and quit believing in God. I was keenly disappointed to learn this, and worked during the summer to help him see a different side to the evidence. Of course, this means that Southern Adventist University teaches theistic evolution. Right?”

    Wrong–as you very well know. However, when you couple the attitudes of the students with the class syllabus, and the other concrete evidence that has been published on this site, I believe that the conclusions I draw are fair.

    If, as you seem to want us to believe, there has been a reform in LSU in the past 1.5 years, I would expect to see students with more respect for the scriptures and who don’t keep arguing that religion has no place in a science classroom. (An argument I also see from professors and other adults who should know better.) As I have said before, science was created by God and you cannot, with any integrity, divorce science from its Creator. God has every right in a science classroom as well as an English classroom and any other subject you want to name–yes, even a PE classroom. God should permeate the university in every aspect of learning and life. To separate Him from any subject is foolishness. Anytime students hold this view, I feel it evidence that this is what they are being taught…and from the posts of the profs I have seen, I believe that reinforces my conclusion.




    0
    View Comment
  12. Thank you, Faith, for clarifying the basis of your claims. I’m sure that most EducateTruthers see things exactly as you do, so it’s informative to understand your collective mindset.




    0
    View Comment
  13. Charles, if I correctly understand your questions, then my answer to each one is Yes. I do not claim that my arguments are strengthened by my personal doctrinal soundness. But you asked me the questions and I have responded.

    You should be able to answer my good friend David Read’s convoluted query in no more than two sentences. Something like this: Conflict resolution literature and data that is external to Scripture has no evidentiary basis in our assessment of the truthfulness of Matthew 18. We accept the counsel of Matthew 18 at face value, understanding the contradiction that inheres in criticizing (putting to the test, critiquing, questioning, seeking to validate, seeking to invalidate) what we believe to be the Word of God.




    0
    View Comment
  14. This I am directing to this site’s editors and webmaster and formatist. Thanks very much for programming into posts the two ikons LIKE or DISLIKE, whereby readers may interact. But recent posts have evinced the need for an additional one, even more relevant, than merely Like or Dislike, and likely to be punched far more frequently. It would be an ikon that conveys “what the blankety-blank are you saying?” Maybe two hands thrown up to surrender, on a black background.




    0
    View Comment
  15. anonymous 1: “i guarantee you…evolutionists and creationists alike will eat together in heaven.”

    Wanna bet? Do you seriously think that God will go to all the trouble to purify the world and then preserve the very ones who deny Him and His power? He would have to save Satan, his minions, and almost the entire world as it stands. Kind of negates the entire exercise, don’t you think? Give me a break. Doesn’t take much thought to figure this one out. You are labouring under a delusion.




    0
    View Comment
  16. So if we accept Mat. 18 as true, are we finished? Or shouldn’t we also put it into practice in the way we do conflict resolution?

    Likewise, if we accept Genesis 1-11 as true, shouldn’t we also do origins science accordingly? What’s the difference?




    0
    View Comment
  17. David Read: So if we accept Mat. 18 as true, are we finished? Or shouldn’t we also put it into practice in the way we do conflict resolution? Likewise, if we accept Genesis 1-11 as true, shouldn’t we also do origins science accordingly? What’s the difference?

    Matthew 18 provides relevant counsel on Christian conduct. Genesis 1-11 offers no counsel whatsoever on how to do science of any sort.




    0
    View Comment
  18. Faith: anonymous 1: “i guarantee you…evolutionists and creationists alike will eat together in heaven.”

    Wanna bet?

    There are millions of sincere Christians who accept theistic evolution, and I would bet my life savings, as well as my right leg, left arm, right eye, and half my liver that many of these individuals will be in heaven. The SDA Church teaches that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ’s blood, not by belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis. I suggest you review SDA Fundamental Belief #10.




    0
    View Comment
  19. David Dunkin: So God created man in His own image; . . . male and female created He them.” Here is clearly set forth the origin of the human race; and the divine record is so plainly stated that there is no occasion for erroneous conclusions. God created man in His own image. Here is no mystery. There is no ground for the supposition that man was evolved by slow degrees of development from the lower forms of animal or vegetable life. Such teaching lowers the great work of the Creator to the level of man’s narrow, earthly conceptions. Men are so intent upon excluding God from the sovereignty of the universe that they degrade man and defraud him of the dignity of his origin

    Indeed – that statement exposes the atheist centric nature of the argument and contrasts it to what actually happened in nature.

    Thank you for posting it.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  20. That’s a quote you will not find Kent making on Spectrum whenever Mark Finley or Clifford Goldstein’s published statements against by-faith-alone belief in evolutionism are brought up for pilloring al la Spectrum.

    Professor Kent: BobRyan:
    Excuse me, but I wrote my own essay at Spectrum on these very points (scripture elevated above human reason and science) before Finley and Goldstein came out

    There are plenty of examples on spectrum of Goldstein’s stand on creation being rundown over at the big-left-tent. I simply point out that on those threads you will find people like me supporting Goldstein’s view on creation – but we do not find Kent doing that – even though you did it here on EducateTruth!

    You pretend in the post above to object to my pointing out your actions in that regard. why not simply post the link for a Spectrum thread where you DID mention Goldstein as he was being brought up for pillory for daring to support the Bible position on Creation??

    Why be so shy – if your intent is to show us that you were not being duplicitous in your EducateTruth post?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  21. Phillip Brantley: I am opposed to Adventist science teachers promoting theistic evolution for the same hermeneutical reasons that I oppose your criticism of the sacred text. As you have admitted on numerous occasions, your hermeneutical approach to Scripture is identical to the theistic evolutionist’s hermeneutical approach to Scripture. You merely differ regarding the science data.

    Did you ever actually read 3SG 90-94??

    How can the conclusions drawn there be accepted freely without admitting that “The Bible as if it were nonsense” is exactly what is being argued against??

    How did you miss that basic point?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  22. Rich Constantinescu said: All true science is but an interpretation of the handwriting of God in the material world. Science brings from her research only fresh evidences of the wisdom and power of God.

    Professor Kent:
    Yes, Rich, Ellen White has penned this, but what would you conclude about God’s “wisdom and power” if you devoted a full day to watching animals parasitize

    We would conclude that Romans 8 “is true” based on our observations “in nature”. Romans 8 says that all of creation groans and suffers under a system of death and decay – and will continue to do so until the saints are redeemed from the earth and all things are made new.

    Our observations “in nature” turn out to support what we find “in God’s Word” as to what happened in nature and what is now happening “in nature”.

    Why is this concept so difficult for our T.E. friends – and also those who would not be called T.E. and yet would circle the wagons around foundational T.E. tenets “as if that made sense anyway”??

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  23. PK:”There are millions of sincere Christians who accept theistic evolution, and I would bet my life savings, as well as my right leg, left arm, right eye, and half my liver that many of these individuals will be in heaven.”

    Not so fast…there is such a thing as being sincerely wrong and it won’t save you. Nor will the number of people who believe it. Theistic evolution is a compromise with principle. Sincere or not, it takes away the power of God and belief in the scriptures. That is just the slippery slope to leaving Christianity entirely. We are not only accountable for what we know but what we had the opportunity to know. Rejecting the Creator and His power is not proper preparation for heaven. I sincerely and strongly doubt that TE is going to lead to eternal life.

    BTW, I hope you won’t miss your life savings, right leg, left arm, right eye, and half your liver too much. 🙂




    0
    View Comment
  24. Phillip Brantley: Charles, I believe the best interpretation of the days of creation is that they are literal 24-hour days that follow each other in a consecutive and contiguous manner to form one literal week.
    I have not seen an alternative interpretation that I find persuasive.
    You are still missing the point about what we are discussing. So allow me to ask you some Socratic questions:
    1. Do you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God?
    2. If you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, is one at liberty to criticize (put to the test, question, critique, seek to validate, seek to invalidate) it through the lenses of external science data?
    3. In other words, do you accept biblical data at face value on faith or do you require that the biblical data be validated by external science data?

    Here Phillip carefully conflates the accurate rendering of the text (what does the text SAY) with the Acceptance of the text (do you believe the text is the Word of God).

    Conflating hermeneutics with epistimology as if they are the same thing is key to Phillip’s strategy and is misleading.

    We see the text refer to real literal days – and acknowledge this fact. So also do diehard atheists see that the text speaks of literal days – and they admit that this is what is “in the text as well”.

    But WE claim that the text is ACCURATE in what it says in regard to what actually happened in nature — and we accept the text as the Word of God in that regard. (our acceptance of the text is via the methods of epistemology).

    The atheist while agreeing with us on the hermeneutic – will differ with us in that he/she rejects the text as being true and accurate and will claim that the text is not correct in what it claims to have happened “in nature”.

    The atheist will argue that accepting the text as true, and accurate is to accept total nonsense – a mere myth that does not agree with what actually happened in nature.

    This contrast demonstrates the difference between hermeneutics and epistemology.

    It is incredibly obvious to the objective unbiased reader – and thus it is difficult to see how Phillip expects to be taken seriously when he tries to argue against the obvious.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  25. Jeff, isn’t the paradigm, model, or working hypothesis an important part of doing science? Mainstream origins science accepts as it’s paradigm the idea that life on earth is very old and that God, if there is a god, had nothing to with the origin and history of the earth and life on earth.

    Now, if you believe that isn’t true, if you instead believe that Genesis 1-11 is true, why would you continue to do origins science using a paradigm, model, or working hypothesis that you believe to be wrong?

    If you won’t work as if the Bible’s factual claims are true, why would you behave as if the Bible’s behavioral prescriptions are binding?




    0
    View Comment
  26. BobRyan : That is what we call “spin doctoring” by master Kent. It is Kent that proposes that the bible is pure nonsense – that real science is opposed to the Bible and that SDAs should proclaim a “spaghetty monster” form of belief (in line with Dawkin’s accusations against Christians) – so as to present our acceptance of creation as a pure “against all facts” form of lunacy.
    It is no wonder that Kent and Brantley and others work so hard to deny the I.D. element seen IN nature!

    George R.:

    Bob, you know very well that neither Kent nor Bradley “propose that the Bible is pure nonsense,” and that neither promotes blind faith.

    On the contrary they both argue that science demonstrates the bible to be lunacy – showing that nothing of the sort actually happened in nature – as what the Bible claims. They argue along with Richard Dawkins that to believe the bible is to reject common sense.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  27. In 3SG 90-91 we are told that the T.E. position is the “worst form” of infidelity because it is “infidelity in disguise” in the case of a Christian claiming to be T.E. – which is to claim to believe in Christianity and Evolutionism at the same time.

    Kent counters with

    Professor Kent: There are millions of sincere Christians who accept theistic evolution, and I would bet my life savings, as well as my right leg, left arm, right eye, and half my liver that many of these individuals will be in heaven.

    And so you have two sources – each proclaiming their own view of this issue.

    Choose you this day —

    Without the smoke and mirrors misdirection that Kent offers – what you have is a warning in 3SG 90-91 not only against embracing the darkness that is T.E. but also against having T.E. modeled for students and promoted in the say that Prof Bradley and the LSU biology and religion departments chose to do it at LSU according to his statements and the statements of Fritz Guy.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  28. Faith: If, as you seem to want us to believe, there has been a reform in LSU in the past 1.5 years, I would expect to see students with more respect for the scriptures and who don’t keep arguing that religion has no place in a science classroom. (An argument I also see from professors and other adults who should know better.)

    Indeed – we have Kent arguing that LSU is now the champion of the SDA view on origins in their biology and religion classes – but we have no LSU students coming here and telling us that LSU is now engaged in debunking by-faith-alone acceptance of evolutionism, exposing its flaws, explaining where the gaps are — in either their science or religion classes.

    Where are the firsthand sources to support Kent’s claims?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  29. David Read: Now, if you believe that isn’t true, if you instead believe that Genesis 1-11 is true, why would you continue to do origins science using a paradigm, model, or working hypothesis that you believe to be wrong?

    I don’t do “orgins science.” Not a single publication on the topic. I study contemporary biology. Plenty of publications. I note that you do not do “origins science” either–unless you think writing about origins constitutes science.

    If you won’t work as if the Bible’s factual claims are true, why would you behave as if the Bible’s behavioral prescriptions are binding?

    Again, my work has nothing to do with the Bible’s claims, which I nevertheless accept as true and apply to my personal life.

    Let’s get something straight. I have no problem with an effort to find evidence supporting the SDA position on origins. What I object to is the insistence that “overwhelming evidence” supports our position (true only if one cherry-picks the evidence) and that we cannot believe in God’s claims unless there is physical evidence to back them up. My regard for scripture is much higher than those who insist on the latter.




    0
    View Comment
  30. Bob Ryan, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You accuse me of arguing that the Bible is “nonsense” and “lunacy.” Aren’t you concerned that people might think you’re a bit out of touch with reality for making that accusation?

    And you claim that I conflate hermeneutics with epistemology. Again, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

    If the study of hermeneutics is too difficult for you to understand, as it obviously appears to be, let me encapsulate everything in a nutshell for you:

    The Seventh-day Adventist Church believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Accordingly, the Church’s hermeneutics, its interpretation of and regard for the sacred text, and its method of doing theology, demand consistency with that presupposition. To that end, the Church in 1986 formally rejected the hermeneutic of criticism, knowing very well that such criticism is inconsistent with the presupposition that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

    To everyone’s regret, you and other Educate Truth proponents together with the theistic evolutionists have embraced the hermeneutic of criticism regarding Scripture’s relationship with external science data. I can see that you are confused and are not fully aware of what you are doing. I do not want to be harsh with you but merely point out the inherent flaws of your methodology, which is unacceptable to Seventh-day Adventists.

    I have otherwise enjoyed this discussion, which I think has run its course. This concludes my participation for the time being.




    0
    View Comment
  31. Faith: Rejecting the Creator and His power is not proper preparation for heaven. I sincerely and strongly doubt that TE is going to lead to eternal life.

    Rejecting the Creator and TE are hardly synonymous. Billy Graham is a TE, and I’ll bet with my left kidney added in with the leg, arm, eye, liver portion and life savings proferred earlier that he has led more souls to the Creator than you have.




    0
    View Comment
  32. Bob Ryan, your bizarre fabrications and obfuscations are too convoluted and too many to address. I’m going to ignore them.

    I suggest you spend more time with your children and grandchildren; they need you more than your dwindling online fan club does.




    0
    View Comment
  33. Phillip Brantley: Bob Ryan, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You accuse me of arguing that the Bible is “nonsense” and “lunacy.” Aren’t you concerned that people might think you’re a bit out of touch with reality for making that accusation?
    And you claim that I conflate hermeneutics with epistemology. Again, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

    Your defense that the subject matter is too difficult for you is not as compelling as you may have at first imagined.

    Your story above makes it appear that you imagine we do not see your “do not compare the Bible with what you actually see in nature” argument is every bit the “Bible is nonsense” solution that you had hoped we would not see.

    What part of this was not obvious even to you?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  34. Phillip Brantley:

    (Obligatory ranting deleted here by BobRyan…)

    The Seventh-day Adventist Church believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

    Well you actually get that part of your post correct.

    Where you seem to falter is admitting to the obvious fact that accepting the text as the Word of God is an exercise in epistemology not hermeneutics.

    The atheist is able to use our same method of heremeutics to note that the bible is clearly arguing for a real 7 day creation week (real days for those T.E’s still confused about what a day is). They do not however use our same tools in the area of epistemology to come to our same conclusion there as well.

    Hint: The atheist rejects the Bible – but still admits that the Bible says the world was created in 7 literal days.

    You willingly conflate “interpretation of” (Hermeneutics) with “regard for” (Epistemology) — munging them together and calling them hermeneutics. Then when you are caught doing it – you “act surprised” when we “notice”.

    Phillip Brantley said :
    Accordingly, the Church’s hermeneutics, its interpretation of and regard for the sacred text,

    Apparently you “could not help doing it again” – in that post where you want to pretend that you do not know what we are talking about.

    How self-defeating of you to undercut your own claim that way.

    the Church in 1986 formally rejected the hermeneutic of criticism, knowing very well that such criticism is inconsistent with the presupposition that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

    Interesting spin.

    The church rejected “higher criticism” which not only bends the rendering of the text so that the words can be bent to whatever agenda you may have in coming to the text – but also wrenches the level of acceptance of the text to nothing more than the best efforts of non-science cultures steeped in myth.

    If you were just arguing that “higher criticism” is a corruption of both hermeneutics and epistemology – I would not have any argument with your position.

    Phillip Brantley said:
    To everyone’s regret, you and other Educate Truth proponents together with the theistic evolutionists have embraced the hermeneutic of criticism

    Here is where your spin has gone too far and is exposed for the flawed argument that it is.

    Our solution has been to carefully distinguish between the two disciplines — at the very point where you had hoped to conflate them and misdirect the readers.

    Our solution has been to point out that the Bible “makes sense” when compared to our observations in nature. That even I.D. is apparent in nature even to non-Bible aware pagans — just as God claims in Romans 1. (A point you carefully run away from as it defeats your position not only on I.D. but also in the “bible is nonsense” aspect of your solution).

    I can see that you are confused and are not fully aware of what you are doing. I do not want to be harsh with you but merely point out the inherent flaws of your methodology, which is unacceptable to Seventh-day Adventists.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  35. Professor Kent: too many to address. I’m going to ignore them.

    When my daughters were 3 and 4 years old we used to play a game of hide and seek. One day the 3 year old decided to hide by simply standing there and covering her eyes with her little hands so she could not see me as I was counting as if this would produce the desired result.

    In Alice in Wonderland – the solution was to close her eyes and click her heels.

    All funny stuff when children and actors try out those “solutions” – but it is less humorous when we see adults pretending that such ideas work in real life.

    Jeff – If your argument is really running aground as you say and you want to solve the problem of my exposing the flaws in your solution – your only real options are to either embrace truth, or else get me banned from posting.

    Short of that – you still have the specific problem above.

    I realize I am stating the obvious at this point – but for some innexplicable reason you have chosen the solution above and I am just trying to help you out by proposing a more effective strategy for you.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  36. There are 4 basic positions that have been posted so far —

    1. Believe evolutionism is true – no matter what the Bible says to the contrary or the observations in science telling you that birds do not come from reptiles. Exercise no critical thinking when it comes to by-faith-alone acceptance of evolutionism. Seek to find a way to bend and wrench either the interpretation of the Bible or the acceptance of the Bible as the Word of God – so that it does not matter to you any more.

    2. Believe that creation is true – but that it is not in line with actual science. So tell our young people that we believe in nonsense — early and often. That way those who decide in favor of nonsense will remain faithful when the day comes that they find out that the Bible does not agree with reality of “Evolutionism”. This gives evolutionist what they want – and it gives this particular brand of Christian what they want. Everyone gets along just fine.

    3. Believe that Creation is true and that observations in nature support I.D. etc – but claim that this is not that important when compared to the higher goal of always getting along no matter what the level of differences. In this model it is “mean spirited” to address apostasy in the camp. To each his own – and everyone gets along.

    4. Believe that Creation is true as God stated it. Notice that observations in nature are in harmony with the I.D. principle of Romans 1. Realize and proclaim the full Christiantiy-destroying implication of evolutionism (even in cases where that is described in 3SG 90-94.). Stand for truth – be counted – though the heavens fall.

    The first two are clearly “surrender-first” options.

    The third one is simply a head-in-sand approach not unlike those who choose to cover their eyes to make the problems go away.

    Only the fourth group above – have a real solution.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  37. Hermeneutics vs. Epistemology

    The problem with Phil Brantley’s views is that he really doesn’t deal with epistemology – i.e., how he knows that the Bible is really the Word of God to begin with. Until he does that, there really is no rational basis to blindly accept the Bible as the Word of God over and above the claims of any other religious text – like the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon.

    Hermeneutics, the science of determining what an author was trying to say, is not the same thing as epistemology – the science of determining that what the author was trying to say is actually true. Hermeneutics and epistemology go hand-in-hand, but they are not the same thing. Brantely consistently confuses these concepts.

    In short, one is forced to make critical choices when one is deciding between competing options. I feel that Brantley has chosen the Bible largely because he was born into Christianity rather than because he has spent much time critically thinking about why he believes what he believes or how he is able to know what he thinks he knows.

    It is also for this reason, or so it seems to me, that Brantley fails to understand basic scientific methodology and how it can be universally applied. He is inconsistent in his views and applications of the methods of science and philosophy – and therefore of religion as well. He really doesn’t know why he believes anything. He doesn’t understand the methodology or the logical basis for his epistemology in any realm of thought – except to follow the conclusions of those he considers to be authorities in various disciplines without any real personal understanding of his own that he can put into his own words.

    As far as Professor Kent, he is simply trying to have his cake and eat it too. He is only consistent in speaking out of both sides of his mouth…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  38. @Professor Kent: Exciting! Ex-cit-TING! You say lot of exciting things but this is – hello! – glorious, inspiring of rhapsody impossible to restrain. The Full Professor donating sundry organs and body parts! No greater love… No need for routine serological evidence prior to tissue bank acceptance; by faith alone your liver does not never harbor hepatitis C, nor any mentionable viscera, HIV. And all this, of course, for charity. EduTruth has already got sufficient of your spleen (thanks anyway). LSU gets the pineal; creationcare.org must get the windpipe.




    0
    View Comment
  39. I have otherwise enjoyed this discussion, which I think has run its course. This concludes my participation for the time being.

    Mr. Brantley, Are you really leaving, or are you, as Prof. Kent seems to have done, at least a dozen times in the past, simply “teasing” us with your exiting proposal?




    0
    View Comment
  40. BobRyan: George R. wrote:
    Bob, you know very well that neither Kent nor Bradley “propose that the Bible is pure nonsense,” and that neither promotes blind faith.

    On the contrary they both argue that science demonstrates the bible to be lunacy – showing that nothing of the sort actually happened in nature – as what the Bible claims.

    Bob, you’ve hardened your heart and gone mad. You wouldn’t know “truth” if it smacked you between the eyes. You’ve proven to every reader here that you are not “in Christ.” Turn off your computer, throw your modem in garbage, and save your soul before it is consumed with hatred and falsehood.




    0
    View Comment
  41. @Professor Kent:

    I think you meant “creation” instead of “creationism”. To my knowledge, nowhere do the SDA official beliefs talk about “creationism”. I take it you do know the difference…..




    0
    View Comment
  42. oink: @Professor Kent: Exciting! Ex-cit-TING! You say lot of exciting things but this is – hello! – glorious, inspiring of rhapsody impossible to restrain. The Full Professor donating sundry organs and body parts! No greater love… No need for routine serological evidence prior to tissue bank acceptance; by faith alone your liver does not never harbor hepatitis C, nor any mentionable viscera, HIV. And all this, of course, for charity. EduTruth has already got sufficient of your spleen (thanks anyway). LSU gets the pineal; creationcare.org must get the windpipe.

    How old did you say you were? Seriously.




    0
    View Comment
  43. Sean Pitman: Brantley…really doesn’t know why he believes anything.

    As far as Professor Kent, he is simply trying to have his cake and eat it too. He is only consistent in speaking out of both sides of his mouth…

    From a true gentleman and man of God. Even the angels admire such wisdom and charity.




    0
    View Comment
  44. Sean, you really should not take it so personally that Brantley and I reject your position for that of the SDA Biblical Research Institute. One day your disciples will wake up and learn what the Church really teaches about criticism and regard for scripture. Until then…well…they have you.




    0
    View Comment
  45. Kent apparently does not realize he lost some of us when he stormed in to Educate Truth two years ago ranting and waving, “If I were an Adventist, I’d be ashamed to be one of you!” The fuss Kent put up made some here ask why an outsider was so upset about the Adventists not “representing”? When the shame game didn’t work Kent stormed out, stormed in, stormed out again (and again).

    Some of us wondered, why is Kent so interested? Is he for lack of a better strategy trying to corner ET in any way he can in this case by shame and blame? Is he playing whatever side he can to get his advantage? Some of us asked directly if he was after all an Adventist, to which Kent irately responded, “as to the question of whether I’m an Adventist or not … it makes no difference.”

    We have been for some time more than beginning to see the truth in that statement. Therefore Kent truly should not be upset when some people don’t take seriously his apology of, “I also am a Creationist.” Trust is built and the foundation is missing.

    Here is recent gem towards a “fellow creationist”:

    Kent says, “Bob, you’ve hardened your heart and gone mad. You wouldn’t know “truth” if it smacked you between the eyes. You’ve proven to every reader here that you are not “in Christ.” Turn off your computer, throw your modem in garbage, and save your soul before it is consumed with hatred and falsehood.”

    Hatred indeed. Those who stand for what they believe are, understandably, a mystery and great cause of perplexity to Kent usually worth many hours of his insight and forethought on his computer and modem. That last post apparently is not the fruit of taking enough time to cover one’s tracks.
    God bless,

    Rich




    0
    View Comment
  46. Bob Pickle: our unwillingness to support your claim

    Bob, I have previously asked on this site if there is ANY evidence for creation, and so far no one on Educate Truth has offered anything. The teachers are just teaching the evidence. If you want them to teach science, then you are going to have to find science that supports your conclusions. Science that is strong enough to be convincing to the majority of educated people. I think we would get further if we stopped attacking out of ignorance and start studying the evidence.




    0
    View Comment
  47. Rich Constantinescu, I fail to understand why a pastor of your standing influence joins in on the ad hominen attacks and character assasination. It’s beneath your profession.

    Apparently you believe, endorse, and encourage Bob Ryan’s incessant put-downs and mischaracterizations. This reveals much about you and how you operate as a leader of God’s flock.




    0
    View Comment
  48. @Phillip Brantley: To everyone’s regret, … Educate Truth together with the theistic evolutionists have embraced the hermeneutic of criticism — PB, July 16, 10:00 PM

    That’s bad, to analytically criticize?

    But isn’t hermeneutics nothing if not criticism? Higher-historical-haute-grammatical-phrenological-philosophical-parochial-medieval/pop-empiric-imperial criticism? The kind that is so exquisitely critical and historical and grammatical that it decides whether, or what part of, the Bible is myth or allegory or otherwise dismissible, or how seriously taken, that kind?

    And suddenly EducaTruth and theistic evolution are…bedfellows?

    And ergo hermeneutic kinetics uber alles?

    Next question.




    0
    View Comment
  49. I meant “standing and influence” in my prior message.

    Rich has admonished me for my initial reluctance to reveal details about my personal life. I believe arguments should be evaluated on their intrinsic merit, which is one reason I have never posted here with initials reflecting my earned degrees after my name.

    Rich has played the ubiquitous “how can we believe you card,” for reasons shared by others who don’t appreciate what I write, and I will address this shortly. He also suggested that my advice to Bob Ryan was motivated by hatred. That is not true. I’m very concerned about Bob’s well-being, and I’ll explain this in my next post.

    Curiously, Rich feels




    0
    View Comment
  50. Professor Kent: Bob, you’ve hardened your heart and gone mad.

    Kent – you may remember the old days last year when the Spectrum ad hominem machinery was all cranked up and issuing similar low-discourse posts such as you have recently offerred up here on Educate Truth.

    Why in the world would you think that you can now outdo the already well established Spectrum posts in that regard? If nothing else you have to respect those guys for having a fairly good aptitude for ad hominem. Why not just let them be the champions of such tactics and leave it there?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  51. BobRyan: 3SG 90-91

    Bob, Why is it that you quote only one thing Mrs. White said. Why don’t you quote where she said, that reason we have science in our schools is to correct errors in theology?




    0
    View Comment
  52. Sean Pitman: Hermeneutics vs. Epistemology
    The problem with Phil Brantley’s views is that he really doesn’t deal with epistemology – i.e., how he knows that the Bible is really the Word of God to begin with. Until he does that, there really is no rational basis to blindly accept the Bible as the Word of God over and above the claims of any other religious text – like the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon.
    Hermeneutics, the science of determining what an author was trying to say, is not the same thing as epistemology – the science of determining that what the author was trying to say is actually true. Hermeneutics and epistemology go hand-in-hand, but they are not the same thing. Brantely consistently confuses these concepts.

    I am curious as to how many times that same simple and obvious point above has to be brought up to Phillip by various posters on this board – before he will begin to open his mind to the fact that the readers on this board see a huge flaw in his argument. A flaw that needs to be addressed with something like substance if he expects to promote his views in that regard.

    He seems to be “stuck” at the level of conflating hermeneutics with epistemology and hoping that “nobody will notice”.

    Since it is already abundant that everybody on this board has “noticed” – when does he ever get to his next point? Endlessly circling back to “I hope nobody will notice as I do it yet again” is not the well thought out solution that he seems to have at first imagined.

    However – he has suggested that this tactic works just fine over at the big-left-tent. However even there – one or two posters were known to have pointed out this gap in his argument in days past.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  53. Ron: BobRyan: 3SG 90-91
    Bob, Why is it that you quote only one thing Mrs. White said. Why don’t you quote where she said, that reason we have science in our schools is to correct errors in theology?

    Ron – I agree that Ellen White spoke to a great many topics. But in this case she specifically addressed the T.E. issue itself.

    Why are the T.E.’s so focused on ignoring the very area where she actually mentions their ideas by name?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  54. BobRyan: Notice that observations in nature are in harmony with the I.D.

    Well, there is a problem: There aren’t any observations in nature that support ID. At least not any that have stood the test of time.

    Well, on second thought we did create a bacteria. I guess that was intelligent design.




    0
    View Comment
  55. Ron: Faith: “That old serpent the devil” is definitely reptilian.
    (Quote)
    Actually, serpents are NOT reptilian, they are “Serpentes”

    Reptiles: cold-blooded, have tough skin or scales, and lay eggs. Remind you of any serpents you have seen?

    Squamata (scaled reptiles) – suborder Serpentes.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  56. Ron: BobRyan: Notice that observations in nature are in harmony with the I.D.
    Well, there is a problem: There aren’t any observations in nature that support ID

    hint – take a look at a living cell sometime.

    Just one living prokaryote cell demonstrate an apparently infinite level of I.D.

    If you doubt that – then whip out your own hand-dandy chemistry set and “try doing to make one”. Clearly you do not have the technology to do it nor even the technology to design it.

    Given that you cannot even back-engineer it – you are in a poor position to claim that God as the maker of the cell shows no intelligence in his handiwork.

    What part of this was supposed to be confusing for the readers here?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  57. @BobRyan: Well, for one reason, I don’t agree with your interpretation of the passage you quote. To me, it appears that Mrs. White is really objecting to the use of science to justify disbelief in God, and in her day people thought the two were mutually exclusive. We now know that is not true. You have to remember, in her day they did not even know about DNA, let alone how DNA evolves.




    0
    View Comment
  58. Any unbiased objective reader would recognize that the majority of Bob Ryan’s posts consist of harsh put-downs and belittlement of the intelligence and credibility of other individuals (most often me). Here is a partial list of examples of Bob’s language in recent weeks:

    – many of them have backslidden so far down the path of befuddlement
    – That is a foray into fiction that deserves closer review
    – It is Kent that proposes that the bible is pure nonsense
    – Your “spin doctoring” is not going to convince anyone using a tiny amount of critical thinking
    – How self-defeating of you to undercut your own claim that way
    – Apparently you “could not help doing it again”
    – (Obligatory ranting deleted here by BobRyan…)
    – Your defense that the subject matter is too difficult for you is not as compelling as you may have at first imagined
    – Without the smoke and mirrors misdirection that Kent offers
    – [Kent and Brantley] argue that science demonstrates the bible to be lunacy
    – it is difficult to see how Phillip expects to be taken seriously when he tries to argue against the obvious
    – Kent insists on demonstrating the fact that though he can be lead to water – he cannot be made to drink
    – His “any old excuse will do” policy of rejecting what is right there on the page
    – Brantley’s argument above betrays his total lack of knowledge of the subject to which he speaks
    – But in an effort to humor those who would follow the rabbit trail Brantley offers you
    – Again “endless spin doctoring”
    – In other words – “the obvious”
    – At some point Kent – it pays to throw away that shovel
    – Kent’s endless “spin doctoring” is evident in that example he chooses above
    – There we see the tactic of spinning spinning an alternate reality
    – You have crafted another interesting “spin” Kent
    – Well crafted – but obviously false to anyone using an ounce of critical thinking
    – I assume that your excercise above in just “making stuff up” is not meant to be persuasive to someone who does not already take your extreme positions.
    – Sadly for Phil’s endless lines of fiction
    – Oh well – you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink
    – Your argument suffers from the “believe whatever a atheist tells you to think” problem
    – Oh no wait! Now you are going to chant – toss magic dust and tell the crowd our souls are doomed as was done in the dark ages when arguments failed and the masses were to be turned away from truth
    – Apparently you are not using critical thinking much in your arguments

    What is Bob’s source of inspiration for this harsh verbage? It’s not the Holy Spirit whispering in his ear. I give Bob high praise for his ability to mock and belittle others, but he would not be doing so with as much gusto if Jesus was sitting at his side.

    Rich Constantinescu, the pastor, chose to admonish me for my reaction to Bob, in which I encouraged him to make a dramatic change in his life to escape the addiction of maligning other people online. I am disappointed that Rich considered it his pastoral duty to admonish me while neglecting to encourage Bob to use more grace and charity with the style and substance of his posts.




    0
    View Comment
  59. BobRyan: Given that you cannot even back-engineer it – you are in a poor position to claim that God as the maker of the cell shows no intelligence in his handiwork

    Bob, This is why I have a hard time taking you seriously, you refuse to acknowledge what is in front of your very eyes. We HAVE back engineered it (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2010-05-21-genome21_ST_N.htm). We understand how evolution works and we see it happening everyday.

    Just look around. For the moment forget Genesis and Biology. Evolution is universal principle. Everything evolves. Even things that are intelligently designed (like cars, computers, language, music) evolve. I bought a food processor today at Costco. Costco itself is a business model that evolved from Fedco. Comparing the new food processor to the old one reveals that the food processor has evolved quite a bit in 30 years. There is not inherent conflict between evolution and creation, any more than there is a conflict between intelligent engineers and the evolution of transportation.

    Really, there is no reason to be threatened. The threat is wholly imaginary. Yes, you can chose to interpret Mrs. White the way you have, and it will make you narrow minded, bigoted and oppressive, or you can chose to interpret her statement in a way that is open, and inclusive and yet still takes her concern seriously. I am really hoping that some on this web site will pause and take a second look. I know it is scary to accept something that seems on the surface to threaten your core beliefs, but truth is true. It will stand. You don’t need to be afraid. (I think there is a Mrs White quote somewhere to that effect.) Take Mrs. White seriously, but take everything she said seriously, not just those things that reinforce your fear.




    0
    View Comment
  60. BobRyan: There are 4 basic positions that have been posted so far

    There is a fifth option. Believe that the Bible is the word of God, but that it was not meant to be understood as a rule book, but as a case study. Maybe we are supposed to read it and think about it, and maybe even disagree with it. You know, argue with God, like Abraham did before Sodom and Moses did before Israel, and Mary did at the wedding. Maybe like Job we are supposed to be honest and complain when God is abusive toward us. Maybe there is supposed to come a time when we no longer kill people who pick up sticks on the Sabbath. Maybe there comes a time when marrying you sister is incest, taking a second wife is bigamy, and tying your child up and threatening to kill him because you hear God telling you to is insanity and abuse. Maybe we are supposed to read these stories, and realize how horrible some ideas of righteousness are and change our “fundamental beliefs” (to quote Mrs. White.)




    0
    View Comment
  61. What Professor Kent Believes

    1. The 28 SDA Fundamental Beliefs. All of them.
    2. SDA FB #6, to include the proposed modification that the creation week was 6 contiguous 24-hour periods.
    3. That the Bible is God’s word, which can be trusted at faith value ahead of human reason and science.
    4. That a few LSU biologists in times past have been disrespectful of SDA beliefs.
    5. That all SDA employees should treat SDA beliefs with respect.
    6. That the LSU and SDA Church leadership has made a sincere effort to address the LSU situation.
    7. That the LSU biologists have not indoctrinated theistic evolution in the past 1.5 years.
    8. That there is evidence for a recent supernatural creation, but also prickly and difficult contradictory evidence that cannot simply be swept under the carpet.
    9. That the evidence supporting a recent supernatural creation is not supported by “overwhelming evidence” unless one cherry-picks the evidence.
    10. That it is appropriate for SDA biologists to teach the basics of evolutionary theory as well as the evidences that oppose it and support fiat creation.
    11. That it is preferable for an SDA biologist to share one’s personal convictions and faith regarding the SDA position, but also acceptable for the professor to refrain from doing so and allow the student to form their own opinion.
    12. That the mark of good SDA professor is not so much what they believe, but how they witness to their love and passion for Jesus Christ.
    13. That the large majority of SDA biologists are faithful to the SDA position on origins.
    14. That the few individual SDA biologists who accept theistic evolution must be instructed not to indoctrinate it upon risk of losing their employment.
    15. That 3SG 90-91 declares theistic evolution to be the worst form of infidelity.
    16. That the majority of non-SDA Christians are theistic evolutionists; that many of these individuals have deep respect for the Bible and love their Savior; and that some among them will be in heaven, just like the many of us who are guilty of a diverse range of sins–all of which are very serious.
    17. That Seventh-day Adventists officially reject criticism of scripture in any form, as voted and published by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in session.
    18. That spelling “Church” with a capital “C” is probably unnecessary, but I respect the institution too much to force myself not to.
    19. That Seventh-day Adventists who accept Biblical claims which cannot be supported by empirical evidence (e.g., instantaneous appearance of a flock of sheep on a verdant pasture; the formation of a living, breathing human being from a pile of dirt; an axe head that can float on water; the virgin birth of Jesus; the resurrection of an human being who was dead three days) should not be belittled by comparing their faith to belief in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is disrespectful in the extreme.
    20. That an SDA employee should not be held up to public ridicule for telling students or Church members that they accept the creation account on faith.
    21. That Christian decency, the principles set forth in Matthew 18, and the SDA Church Manual encourage SDAs to keep their differences within the Church, rather than broadcast the perceived “sins” of others to all interested parties.
    22. That the Los Angeles Dodgers have had better days, thanks to the current ownership debacle.
    23. That apologetics encourages SDAs to place their faith in so-called evidence–and in those who provide the evidence–rather than in a personal, abiding relationship with Jesus Christ. The latter should be promoted to a far greater extent.
    24. That Christians should be the very last individuals to engage in cyberbullying and cyberharrassment, especially involving rumormongering, gossip, and character assassination, and particularly of those not participating in or even aware of the online discussion.
    25. That it is wrong to make sweeping claims about a person’s beliefs based on hearsay.
    26. That websites like Educate Truth, Spectrum, and Adventist Today too often air the very worst of Seventh-day Adventism; I wish the harsh dialogue on both sides (progressive/conservative) would disappear, as it tends to polarize and divide the Church.
    27. That Paul Giem has quite the entertaining mustache, and means well in his Sabbath School classes.
    28. That origins issues are highly divisive and excessive focus on them can do more harm than good to the Church membership and perception of the Church by outsiders.
    29. That the SDA Church leadership is very flawed and very human, but deserves our support, prayers, and respect.
    30. That I am a sinner, having no intrinsic capacity to live a sin-free life. I am utterly dependent on my close friend and confidant, Jesus Christ, for any hope of eternal life.
    31. That Jesus has called true Christians to lovingly embrace and befriend sinners of all forms, including theistic evolutionists, homosexuals, prostitutes, alcoholics, Sabbath breakers…and even cyberbullies. I pray that I can do better myself in this regard.
    32. That Jesus Christ will soon return…which couldn’t be soon enough, far as I’m concerned.
    33. That we should pray for our enemies.
    34. That I need to get completely away from this website.

    Sean Pitman, Bob Ryan, David Read, Ron Stone, Rich Constantinescu, Faith, and others have called into question my beliefs (some frequently calling me a “liar” and “spin master”) and my consistency in incorporating these beliefs into my posts (Sean Pitman claims that I speak out of both sides of my mouth). I do understand the desire to label me a “liar” and “spin master,” because I disagree vigorously with the methods of Educate Truth and can articulate where I believe inappropriate conclusions are made and judgments rendered. However, I invite anyone to point out to me any post written by me that you think is inconsistent with my stated beliefs. I welcome the opportunity to clarify any position in doubt.

    Prayerfully,

    Professor Kent
    Professing Christ until the whole world hears




    0
    View Comment
  62. @BobRyan:

    OK, Bob, I stand corrected. The tree I looked at wasn’t big enough to make the connection between snakes and reptiles. I was surprised to find on the larger tree that Birds are also reptiles which I wasn’t expecting.




    0
    View Comment
  63. @Professor Kent: Thank you. And as agree with you whole-heartedly I doubt we will interact again.

    Just please be cautious that in your defense of the Church authority and these good professors, you do not cross that line you are so careful to hold the rest of us to.

    I dare say you shall not see me posting here again.

    I appreciate your direct candor and honor the confidences that others have placed in you.

    I will, as indicated previously, continual to pray for all involved – even those that I would hope you are laboring for in prayer as you chastise them publicly.




    0
    View Comment
  64. @Professor Kent: Thank you for being open, honest and transparent. I sign my name at the bottome of this list – except for maybe the statement regarding the Dodgers (I’m a Chi-town fan regardless of the sport) and Giem – as I don’t know who he is.

    You are all in my prayers daily even though we’ve never met. I look forward to meeting you in our Maker and King’s presence some day.




    0
    View Comment
  65. Professor Kent: Rejecting the Creator and TE are hardly synonymous. Billy Graham is a TE, and I’ll bet with my left kidney added in with the leg, arm, eye, liver portion and life savings proferred earlier that he has led more souls to the Creator than you have.

    Prof Kent:

    You keep insisting that you believe that the earth was created by God and that you subscribe to the belief that it happened in six 24-hour days within the 10,000 years (if I understand you correctly). Yet you continue to defend people who erroneously believe in TE. BTW I don’t give a hoot what Billy Graham believes–he is not my example. From what I have been told, he has rejected the SDA truth, why would I hold him in high regard? And how do you know he has led souls to the Creator rather than away from Him? If he is teaching TE, he is leading them away from God and giving a false impression of the Creator. Why laud him for this?

    And since you don’t know me any better than I know you, why would you assume to know the number of souls I have or have not led to Christ? (Assumptions, Prof Kent?)

    What I said is true. TE is not proper preparation for heaven–and if you think it is, you are sadly mistaken–for all your education and intelligence. TE does reject the Creator in that it, perforce, claims that the Creator told us a fable when He inspired the book of Genesis. It has to, to make its foolish claims, because it can’t fit its beliefs into the Creation story. You can’t call God a liar and not reject Him in some way. TE limits God’s power and portrays Him with the attributes of Satan. Only Satan would have wanted the earth to be brougth forth with violence. Think carefully about God’s character and anyone can plainly see that TE is a load of nonsense. People who believe TE are given over to a strong delusion because they refuse to believe the plain truth. It doesn’t suit them to be different from the world and to be the object of its derision. So they try to meld truth with error. That is what TE is all about. How you could utter a word in defense of it is beyond me.

    I also don’t understand your apparent stance that it doesn’t matter what we believe, we will all be in heaven together. Not so. God is going to cleanse this earth of error–not take it to heaven. He is a God of love and a God of justice. He will vindicate His law and only those who want to live by it will be saved. It is as clear as that. People who want to compromise truth with error will not fit the profile–of this I am 100% sure. Ergo people who believe TE and reject the scriptures will not be there.

    So, you should be more careful about giving away your body parts so freely, Prof Kent. Before you know it, you will only be half a man. 🙂




    0
    View Comment
  66. Prof Kent: “9. That the evidence supporting a recent supernatural creation is not supported by “overwhelming evidence” unless one cherry-picks the evidence.”

    In view of your apparent aversion to cherry-picking, Prof, what about the TEs that cherry pick their information from the Scriptures and SOP?

    Two things the SOP says that clearly debunks the TE theory are:

    (In Ministry of Healing p 414)
    In the creation of the earth, God was not indebted to pre-existing matter. “He
    spake, and it was; . . . He commanded, and it stood fast.” Psalm 33:9.

    (In Patriarchs and Prophets p 47)
    “The great Jehovah had laid the foundations of the earth; He had dressed the whole world in the garb of beauty, and had filled it with things useful to man; He had created all the wonders of the land and of the sea. In six days the great work of creation had been accomplished. And God ‘rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.’ …

    Notice:
    The foundations were laid and the rest of creation was accomplished in six days. That blows TE right out of the water. There was no pre-existing matter–no billions of years were involved in any way in any of it–it all happened in six days.

    Now the TEs and the progessive/liberals think they can take any scripture or SOP quotations and call them “myths” or “allegories” when they can’t make them fit into their pitiful philosopy (science so-called). That’s cherry-picking, is it not, Prof Kent?

    When God graciously presents us with the earth’s history, what right do we puny mortals have to attempt to change or disregard any of it? It is the heights of ignorance and insufferable conceit to do so.

    The question has been raised about how we can see God in nature when sin has changed it so much.

    Here is something I ran across today that addresses that very thing:

    (Ministry of Healing p 411)
    “The things of nature that we now behold give us but a faint conception of Eden’s glory. Sin has marred earth’s beauty; on all things may be seen traces of the work of evil. Yet much that is beautiful remains. Nature testifies that One infinite in power, great in goodness, mercy, and love, created the earth, and filled it with life and gladness. Even in their blighted state, all things reveal the handiwork of the great Master Artist. Wherever we turn, we may hear the voice of God, and see evidences of His goodness.”

    Notice, Prof Kent, there are ‘evidences’. Perhaps it is just that these evidences are overlooked because we find what we want to see, and are blind to that which we do not want to see; cherry-picking of a different sort.

    Seems to me that there is a lot of that going on around here.




    0
    View Comment
  67. Just in case anyone is interested some of the above quotes came from the chapter “A True Knowledge of God” in Ministry of Healing. This is a marvelous chapter. Everyone who is interested in the Creation controversy needs to read it. What a blessing it is!




    0
    View Comment
  68. Faith: Yet you continue to defend people who erroneously believe in TE.

    Did not Jesus defend a prostitute? A cheating tax collector? A thief? Did he not single out a murderer to become a chief leader of his church? Was not King David an adulterer and murderer–a repeat offender? God’s people, all of which have sinned, are precious in his eyes. God hates the sin but loves the sinner. I’m simply trying to do the same.

    I also have a problem with your basic premise that misunderstanding (error) translates to sin. The wages of sin, not error, is death.

    BTW I don’t give a hoot what Billy Graham believes–he is not my example. From what I have been told, he has rejected the SDA truth, why would I hold him in high regard?

    Billy Graham may believe in theistic evolution, but he doesn’t teach it and doesn’t include it in the message he preaches. It is better to preach Jesus than Adventism. Jesus saves; not the SDA truth. There is no other name under heaven by which men are saved. These are my opinions, Faith, and you are welcome to disagree.

    In view of your apparent aversion to cherry-picking, Prof, what about the TEs that cherry pick their information from the Scriptures and SOP?

    Cherry-picking data is inappropriate for any side of an argument.




    0
    View Comment
  69. Prof Kent:

    In upholding TE you are upholding the sin and not just the sinner. It is a sin to rob God of the glory He so richly deserves. It is a sin to use your influence to make sin look anything less than sin; by so-doing you could lead others astray.

    If, as you say, you are in total agreement with the principles of the SDA church, why do you keep arguing against those of us who are doing our best to uphold them? You should be with us, not against us. That is why so many people see you as being duplicitous on this site. If you believe evolution is truth, why say you believe in Creation? If you believe in Creation, why wield the sword against us who correctly want to see it taught in SDA schools? You make no sense.

    There has been some plain speaking on this site–I believe the occasion calls for it–and you have done plenty of it yourself.

    I simply do not understand you.




    0
    View Comment
  70. Faith: If you believe evolution is truth, why say you believe in Creation? If you believe in Creation, why wield the sword against us who correctly want to see it taught in SDA schools? You make no sense.

    Faith, it is very difficult to converse with someone who, after I say I believe “A” rather than “B,” responds by asking why I believe in “B” and declaring that I make no sense. You are not the only one persists in this kind of game.

    I have been as forthcoming, transparent, and consistent with my views as anyone contributing to this website. No one has gone to the lengths I have to explain their views. There is no point in reiterating myself over and over again.




    0
    View Comment
  71. Professor Kent says:

    “I don’t do ‘orgins science.’ Not a single publication on the topic. I study contemporary biology. Plenty of publications.”

    So, if you did science that related to origins, you would do it pursuant to the biblical paradigm, that is pursuant to the assumption that Genesis 1-11 is true history, correct?




    0
    View Comment
  72. We need to ask questions and investigate with generous spirits, not look for evidence to condemn people. This article does not provide context (especially for the PowerPoint slide) or an opportunity for its subject to respond. Isn’t it best to speak directly to the person? And isn’t it best to try to understand the larger picture and context? Most importantly, isn’t it best to treat other human beings with compassion rather than publicly demonize them (literally)?

    Let’s stop hurling accusations and using Jesus’ words to, quite hypocritically and backhandedly, command one another to be kind. We want people to be kind to us without having to be kind ourselves.

    Open and compassionate dialogue will save the church because there IS no church without relationships formed between those who want to seek God together. That is what a church IS.

    Hearing about evolutionary theory is not the main reason people leave the church; the main reason people leave is because they see a hypocrisy and a lack of compassion in other church members. Jesus didn’t gain followers by arguing, he gained followers by loving people, healing people, providing for people. This infighting is making us an ugly, literally repulsive church (in that it repels people). I love my church, but the comments here make me feel sick and worried about our future viability. I believe that my responsibility to the church is to help shape it by STAYING in it and making sure other people feel that they are welcome at God’s table (NOT my table or the Adventist church’s table).

    God wants us ALL. So shouldn’t we feel the same way and treat other people as though we want them at the table?




    0
    View Comment
  73. Megan said……

    “God wants us ALL. So shouldn’t we feel the same way and treat other people as though we want them at the table?”

    Yes, God want all, but He states the conditions for their acceptance. Namely, repentance. And never does the bible imply in any way that this condition can be abandon.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  74. tA friend suggested I check out on this blog some of the posts by Holly Pham, Nathan Huggins, and others who mention with apparent authority some of my “beliefs.” I have done so and certainly don’t recognize myself! For the record, 1) I am NOT a theistic evolutionist nor have I ever suggested it to be “the true model of origins.” 2) I have NEVER suggested anything like the view that conservative Adventists (of whom I coun myself) are “the type that fly planes into buildings.” (Hopefully that denial will make less “scary” the fact that I have been the president of an Adventist institution.)
    3) Nor would I have ever dreamed of “locking EGW and the rest of the pioneers in Gitmo if they were alive today.” On the contrary, I consider myself a “fan” of Ellen White and many of the pioneers and have the utmost respect and appreciation for their contributions in laying the foundations of our denomination. I challenge anyone to find a disparaging comment from me regarding any of those individuals. Thanks for more closely following the “Comment Guidelines” outlined below for the contributors to this blog.




    0
    View Comment
  75. Ron: BobRyan: There are 4 basic positions that have been posted so far
    There is a fifth option. Believe that the Bible is the word of God, but that it was not meant to be understood as a rule book, but as a case study. Maybe we are supposed to read it and think about it, and maybe even disagree with it.

    Hint: That is the T.E. position listed as option 1 in my post.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  76. At one point on this thread – I said —

    There are 4 basic positions that have been posted so far –

    1. Believe evolutionism is true – no matter what the Bible says to the contrary or the observations in science telling you that birds do not come from reptiles. Exercise no critical thinking when it comes to by-faith-alone acceptance of evolutionism. Seek to find a way to bend and wrench either the interpretation of the Bible or the acceptance of the Bible as the Word of God – so that it does not matter to you any more.

    2. Believe that creation is true – but that it is not in line with actual science. So tell our young people that we believe in nonsense — early and often. That way those who decide in favor of nonsense will remain faithful when the day comes that they find out that the Bible does not agree with reality of “Evolutionism”. This gives evolutionist what they want – and it gives this particular brand of Christian what they want. Everyone gets along just fine.

    3. Believe that Creation is true and that observations in nature support I.D. etc – but claim that this is not that important when compared to the higher goal of always getting along no matter what the level of differences. In this model it is “mean spirited” to address apostasy in the camp. To each his own – and everyone gets along.

    4. Believe that Creation is true as God stated it. Notice that observations in nature are in harmony with the I.D. principle of Romans 1. Realize and proclaim the full Christiantiy-destroying implication of evolutionism (even in cases where that is described in 3SG 90-94.). Stand for truth – be counted – though the heavens fall.

    The first two are clearly “surrender-first” options.

    The third one is simply a head-in-sand approach not unlike those who choose to cover their eyes to make the problems go away.

    Only the fourth group above – have a real solution.

    Larry Geraty: tA friend suggested I check out on this blog some of the posts by Holly Pham, Nathan Huggins, and others who mention with apparent authority some of my “beliefs.” I have done so and certainly don’t recognize myself! For the record, 1) I am NOT a theistic evolutionist nor have I ever suggested it to be “the true model of origins.”

    Given that the T.E. element within LSU flourished and expanded unrestricted during your time at LSU – which of the Creationist versions listed above would you prefer to identify yourself with?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  77. Ron Claimed that he could not find Intelligence in anything God has done in nature. No sign at all of intelligent design from Ron’s POV.

    So I gave him the simple obvious test case – a single eukaryote living cell.

    And his own handy-dandy chemistry set to back-engineer a cell and prove that no intelligent design was needed.

    BobRyan said : Given that you cannot even back-engineer it – you are in a poor position to claim that God as the maker of the cell shows no intelligence in his handiwork

    Innexplicably – Ron responded with this

    Ron:

    Bob, This is why I have a hard time taking you seriously, you refuse to acknowledge what is in front of your very eyes. We HAVE back engineered it (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2010-05-21-genome21_ST_N.htm). We understand how evolution works and we see it happening everyday.

    Had you read your own article carefully you would not have made such a wildly unsubstantiated statement such as the one above.

    This is the part where you lack of attention to detail is not serving your argument as well as you may have at first hoped.

    Your own article said –

    In this latest study, the team designed a non-infectious gene map for Mycoplasma mycoides bacteria, ordered the map’s chemical constituents and assembled those chemicals into a gene chromosome inside yeast cells. Finally, they transplanted the genome into a different species of bacteria, “and booted it up,”

    In your example of “no I.D” we start off with “God’s Yeast cell creation” and “God’s bacteria” – then we add “God’s human creation” designing a gene map with their handy-dandy chemistry set.

    Having only managed to come up with a “gene map” with the help of a few computers and scientists and technology to the max — they then take what God has made and “edit it” with their own handy-dandy custom made gene-map.

    That example is supposed to convince us that they are not dealing with technology at all when it comes to living cells and there is no Intelligence or design required to make even the tiniest (gene map) part of the living cell.

    Your own illustration shoots your “no intelligence or design can be detected in this” argument – in the foot.

    What part of this were we supposed to miss?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  78. Ron said :
    Just look around. For the moment forget Genesis and Biology. Evolution is universal principle. Everything evolves. Even things that are intelligently designed (like cars, computers, language, music) evolve. I bought a food processor today at Costco. Costco itself is a business model that evolved from Fedco. Comparing the new food processor to the old one reveals that the food processor has evolved quite a bit in 30 years.

    You seem to be intent on destroying your own argument.

    The food processor is “static” all it does over time – is rust and break.

    But when you add the “intelligence” of the designer and maker (manufacturer) of the food processor – then “new designs” will show up – new blue prints, new specs, new machines, molds and assembly systems to produce the improved designs.

    The food processor itself is incapable of that intelligence. It will never go out and alter the manufacturing plant, create a new assembly line, design a new product to meet some new set of requirements, do market comparisons to determine a more competitive version-II.

    It takes no intelligence or design to let the food processor “just sit and rust” over time. But if you want “Processor version – II” you have to engage in Intelligent Design — even in your own example.

    You are merely proving the case of I.D. and destroy the “molecule-to-human-mind” storytelling of evolutionism with this example of yours.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  79. First we get this bit of “sweetness and light” from Kent.

    Professor Kent: Bob, you’ve hardened your heart and gone mad. You wouldn’t know “truth” if it smacked you between the eyes. You’ve proven to every reader here that you are not “in Christ.” Turn off your computer, throw your modem in garbage, and save your soul before it is consumed with hatred and falsehood.

    Then we have it followed with this innexplicable claim –

    Professor Kent: What Professor Kent Believes1.

    26. That websites like Educate Truth, Spectrum, and Adventist Today too often air the very worst of Seventh-day Adventism; I wish the harsh dialogue on both sides (progressive/conservative) would disappear, as it tends to polarize and divide the Church.

    Sean Pitman, Bob Ryan, David Read, Ron Stone, Rich Constantinescu, Faith, and others have called into question my beliefs (some frequently calling me a “liar” and “spin master”) and my consistency in incorporating these beliefs into my posts (Sean Pitman claims that I speak out of both sides of my mouth).

    However, I invite anyone to point out to me any post written by me that you think is inconsistent with my stated beliefs.

    What are the readers supposed to think when you go both ways at once?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  80. Kent recently had his all-for-TE arguments called into question – since he claims to be creationist.

    Professor Kent said to Faith:

    Did not Jesus defend a prostitute? A cheating tax collector? A thief? Did he not single out a murderer to become a chief leader of his church? Was not King David an adulterer and murderer–a repeat offender? God’s people, all of which have sinned, are precious in his eyes. God hates the sin but loves the sinner. I’m simply trying to do the same

    Jesus never affirmed the prostitutes or theives or liars or murderers as though those sins were examples of “I’m ok — you’re ok”.

    Jesus never argued against fidelity, morality and faithfulness by trying to make it appear that infidelity, adultery are also another path that good people may wish to pursue – in a “to each his own” kind of big-left-tent-ism.

    Jesus did not confine himself to “endless shades of gray” – such that each point of light was clouded over or such that open rebellion against the foundational doctrines of the Bible was “just another path for christians to consider”.

    How wonderful “the spin” that Kent was ever known for trying to find creative ways to reach out to our fellow T.E.’s and bring them to the point of rejecting evolutionism and accepting creationism by highlighting observations in nature that build faith in the Bible.

    In fact Kent’s response when asked about that – was that he had no time for it.

    Oh well…

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  81. Prof Kent: “Faith, it is very difficult to converse with someone who, after I say I believe “A” rather than “B,” responds by asking why I believe in “B” and declaring that I make no sense. You are not the only one persists in this kind of game.”

    First of all, this isn’t a game, and any erroneous belief here on this site is your own fault. In your postings you seem to contradict all that you have “plainly” stated are your beliefs. What are the rest of us supposed to believe?

    For example that little teaser concerning your drinking of alcohol. It looks to me like you purposely withheld the details of that incident so anyone reading would be misled by it. This, so that someone would post a message just exactly like Martha did, so that you could chastise us all for jumping to conclusions. Looks like a set-up to me.

    Second, I used that little, but most important, word IF. Read my reply again and maybe you can see what I meant by that question.

    If you are going to contradict yourself all the time, then don’t be surprised when people are confused by it and keep asking you to re-state your beliefs.




    0
    View Comment
  82. Professor: “I invite anyone to point out to me any post written by me that you think is inconsistent with my stated beliefs.”

    Inconsistencies? As the poetess would put it, Let me count the ways. No, let IBM’s supercomputer count them. It just crashed! Took the free world’s power grid with it!




    0
    View Comment
  83. My cousin-in-law is Dr. Pitman. He’s a smart cookie–although I see a lot of you guys are too. Can’t follow some of these posts without my brain smoking. Your vocabulary and discussions are good, although sometimes personal and passionate, and maybe a little caustic at times. Not really sure how you’re ever going to resolve this, but knowing God as I do, maybe He doesn’t want you to. He wants you to keep debating so you will keep searching the Scriptures for the right answer, the right action and the right response. A person like me, (a programmer) can add a lot of words to his vocabulary just by reading the posts of all the arguments. I live in Canada so what goes on in LSU doesn’t really affect me at all:I am a Christian (first), then Seventh-day Adventist (second). That’s how I think of myself. I read the Bible every day and I ask the Holy Spirit for help and so am trying to better myself; I have never been in an LSU class so I don’t know what was being taught. Honestly. But I am wondering something. I do believe that the world was made in 1 week–6 24 hr cycles. But I am wondering how you can know that the world was made 6000- 10000 yrs ago:when did that magical week occur. I mean doesn’t 2 yrs “old” or 6000 yrs “old” imply aging. Doesn’t that mean sin. Are you dating the world from when Adam and Eve were created or when they actually ate the apple and introduced “sin” and “oldness”–the 2nd law of thermodynamics–into the universe. I am 46 years “old” because I have 46 years worth of free radicals or whatever inside my cells. Maybe Adam and Eve were “4.6 billion yrs old” when they bit into the apple–from the number of revolutions of the earth around the sun, even though they hadn’t “aged” a day in 4.6 billion. Even though the seasons came and went, the earth must have gone around the sun before sin came in, wouldn’t a sinless world meant there was no “aging” or “oldness” because there was no 2nd law of thermodynamics. Maybe after they sinned, God just let that kind of “shine through”. I dunno. The Bible has a list of generations but do we know for sure that some people just didn’t get missed. If the world is 6000 years old, why does the science carbon dating say the world is older: is the test based on a false assumption or did God “do something” to hide the facts so that believers would have to come to him on faith FIRST rather than evidiencary science SECOND. How can we reconcile 6000 yrs with 4.6 billion yrs; they’re at such loggerheads when it comes to the number. The fact that this debate rages on suggests to me there are dudes employed in this school who are teaching evolution. Let ’em–as long as they give fair play to creation too. Maybe some are, some are not. And some ridicule is going on. Sure. They’re ridiculing God and God will deal with them point blank when He’s good and ready. We say that teaching kids evolution damages their faith. Probably, but if your faith is so weak that you can’t be challenged by what someone else says, then maybe you had little to no faith at all. Doesn’t God know who is going to be saved and who is not already ahead of time anyways so it is no surprise to Him. If you’re a young person, my advice is to take it all in and then go to the Holy Spirit(the teacher) in prayer, and say, “Lord, I don’t understand, show me the right way” and then get up and do what your conscience tells them to do. Won’t the Holy Spirit guide us into all truth, religious and science too when He’s good and ready. Doesn’t God throw us into a sinful world to choose Him out of it and make us stronger. I think if everyone teaches creation science at LSU, then the students won’t know how to deal with evolution when they walk out of the door as a smiling jobless gradulate. If you’re a teacher teaching impressionable young ‘uns about evolution and misleading them, don’t you know what the Bible says about a millstone to be fastened around your neck or something like that. Doesn’t that bother you if you’re just a trifle of a believer? Where is the President of the SDA church? If he can’t do anything–because of legal laws of hiring and firing and free speech–then what makes everyone else think that they can make everyone march to one accord. Where sin abounds, doesn’t grace that much more abound: if we know that LSU is corrupted, doesn’t that mean other Adventist institutions are corrupt as well. Probably are. And yet God is working among the muck to fasten a people for Himself. LSU is doing what every Adventist and Christian church is doing: fighting about something or other and people calling each other names when they don’t agree. Someone here mentioned some historical-grammatical method and historical-context method (have to check after I write this) and I liked that because I didn’t know about it before. That was something new. God bless.




    0
    View Comment
  84. Poor Larry Geraty! He can’t understand why anyone would think him sympathetic to theistic evolution. Well, for starters, he wrote this for Spectrum last year:

    “Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.”

    “Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference.”

    So the traditional Adventist interpretation of Genesis is an “extra-Biblical interpretation” put forward by “the fundamentalist wing” of the SDA Church? What are people supposed to think about Larry Geraty’s views?

    It is no mystery how LaSierra got in the condition it is in.




    0
    View Comment
  85. Does Mr. Read really suggest that there is not a “fundamentalist wing” of the SDA Church and the EducateTruth(sic) web site along with the Adventist Theological Society represents this wing of the SDA Church?




    0
    View Comment
  86. BobRyan: Jesus never affirmed the prostitutes or theives or liars or murderers as though those sins were examples of “I’m ok — you’re ok”.
    Jesus never argued against fidelity, morality and faithfulness by trying to make it appear that infidelity, adultery are also another path that good people may wish to pursue – in a “to each his own” kind of big-left-tent-ism.

    Jesus did not confine himself to “endless shades of gray” – such that each point of light was clouded over or such that open rebellion against the foundational doctrines of the Bible was “just another path for christians to consider”.

    How wonderful “the spin” that Kent was ever known for trying to find creative ways to reach out to our fellow T.E.’s and bring them to the point of rejecting evolutionism and accepting creationism by highlighting observations in nature that build faith in the Bible.

    Up to the same ol’ same ol’, Bob points out obvious facts to contradict statements that I never made. And again he labels MY comments as “spin.” I admire the guy’s imagination and tenacity.




    0
    View Comment
  87. David Read: [Larry Geraty] wrote this for Spectrum last year:
    “Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.”… What are people supposed to think about Larry Geraty’s views?

    Can you please supply the verse(s) in Genesis which mention(s) the 6,000 years?




    0
    View Comment
  88. You know someone is up against the ropes when they cannot address an argument on its merit but must instead resort to making defamatory comments about the person.




    0
    View Comment
  89. David Read: So, if you did science that related to origins, you would do it pursuant to the biblical paradigm, that is pursuant to the assumption that Genesis 1-11 is true history, correct?

    David, I don’t know how to answer your question. I have no interest in paleontological research. I have no interest in microbiology (to explore origins), limited interest in systematics (to explore ancestor-descendent relationships), and while I find biogeography fascinating, the evidence overwhelmingly rejects the hypothesis that contemporary life forms dispersed from a single location (Noah’s ark).

    I would love to produce evidence to support the veracity of Genesis, but most claims involved supernatural acts that cannot be tested by science. And what is the point? At best, I might discover something that I already believe in. At worst, I might discover something that goes against my faith, and if I go with the evidence as Sean Pitman states he would, then what have I done for myself?

    I’m sorry if this is not what you wish to hear. I will simply take God at his word…and if I understand you correctly, you apparently do the same.

    By the way, I saw your remark at Spectrum in which you referred to me as your friend. I appreciated that. (Some here probably think of me as their enema ;p ). We are, first and foremost, brothers in Christ.




    0
    View Comment
  90. No, Ervin, there’s not a fundamentalist “wing.” The church subscribes to all of the fundamentals except verbal inspiration, but even on the nature of inspiration we are closer to the fundamentalist position than to the liberal position.

    On the issue of origins, the literal, recent creation week is well settled Adventist doctrine. There are some liberal pockets like Loma Linda that would like to change that, but they won’t be able to.




    0
    View Comment
  91. Jeff, the verses in Genesis that are relevant to the age of the earth are in chapters 5 and 11. Together with other chronological data in the Bible, these verses show that the earth is young, about six to eight thousand years old.

    Regarding your practice of science, I’ve never been interested in your personal career preferences. The line of questioning I’ve engaged in since you mentioned Matthew 18 was to lead you to the idea that, in the abstract, in principle, one who believes in the historicity of Gen. 1-11 ought to do origins science using a model or paradigm that assumes the truth of that history. Was I mistaken in assuming that you would be able to reason in principle, beyond the concrete realities of your personal situation?




    0
    View Comment
  92. Ervin Taylor: Does Mr. Read really suggest that there is not a “fundamentalist wing” of the SDA Church and the EducateTruth(sic) web site along with the Adventist Theological Society represents this wing of the SDA Church?

    If there is a wing in the church, it is those who have rejected many of the church’s fundamental beliefs. Like David stated earlier, creation is a well established belief in our church.




    0
    View Comment
  93. David Read: Poor Larry Geraty! He can’t understand why anyone would think him sympathetic to theistic evolution. Well, for starters, he wrote this for Spectrum last year:
    “Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.”
    “Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference.”
    So the traditional Adventist interpretation of Genesis is an “extra-Biblical interpretation” put forward by “the fundamentalist wing” of the SDA Church? What are people supposed to think about Larry Geraty’s views?
    It is no mystery how LaSierra got in the condition it is in.

    David Reed makes a good case here. There are those who want to claim they hold a “not T.E.” position when talking to creationists (without saying they believe in creationism) – but then want to claim that believeing what the bible actually says in regard to creation would be “wrong” or perhaps that believing the Bible just as it reads is somehow the evil work of the Michigan Conference etc.

    This is what we might call the “bent bible” form of creationist – where what God says is not exactly trustworthy so make up what you will.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  94. David Read: No, Ervin, there’s not a fundamentalist “wing.” The church subscribes to all of the fundamentals

    When the world speaks of “fundamentalist Christian” they state clearly that they mean “those who take the Bible literally” – those who believe in miracles, believe the Bible is an accurate record of real historic events, believe in creation week just as stated in scripture etc.

    SDAs are by all such measures “fundamentalist”.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  95. From Ellen White:
    (Was she inspired? A lesser light pointing to the greater light?)

    God endowed man with so great vital force that he has withstood the accumulation of disease brought upon the race in consequence of perverted habits, and has continued for six thousand years. This fact of itself is enough to evidence to us the strength and electrical energy that God gave to man at his creation. . . . If Adam, at his creation, had not been endowed with twenty times as much vital force as men now have, the race, with their present habits of living in violation of natural law, would have become extinct. . . . {CC 21.3}

    God did not create the race in its present feeble condition. This state of things is not the work of Providence, but the work of man; it has been brought about by wrong habits and abuses, by violating the laws that God has made to govern man’s existence. {CC 21.4}

    Never has the world’s need for teaching and healing been greater than it is today. The world is full of those who need to be ministered unto–the weak, the helpless, the ignorant, the degraded. The continual transgression of man for nearly six thousand years has brought sickness, pain, and death as its fruit. Multitudes are perishing for lack of knowledge. {CT 467.2}




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.