Re Kevin’s quote “There’s a growing movement suggesting that truth is …

Comment on What is taught at LSU by Ken.

Re Kevin’s quote

“There’s a growing movement suggesting that truth is not absolute, which has led to an illogical philosophy where the only acceptable intolerance is of those who recognize that truth is absolute.”

Dear Kevin

Isn’t the issue more about discovering the truth rather than stating it absolutely? If not why does the SDA talk about present truth? Is today’s present truth the absolute truth, or will revealed future truth become better? Why does the SDA need creation science if biblical origins is the absolute truth?

So Kevin, if present truth is not the absolute truth- as more will be revealed in the future- shouldn’t we be tolerant of all those that are genuinely seeking the truth? That is why, even though I am in profound disagreement with the conclusions of Dr. Pitman, I applaud his efforts to seek empirical scientific evidence to support recent creation. In my humble estimation that is how the SDA is going to gain rational credibility.

Thanks for your comments.

Regards
Ken

Ken Also Commented

What is taught at LSU
Re Lydian’s comment

“I always read you posts with interest. They are always well written, very courteous and usually make me have to put my “thinking cap” on!. I really appreciate all of that!”

Dear Lydian

You are ever so kind. I appreciate your prayers and all the courtesy that everyone has shown me on this forum.

My dear, there is a good brain under that thinking cap.

Being agnostic is a difficult discipline, but one that I hope can be of some small service to my SDA friends. How? Hopefully by asking tough questions without the bias of a non faith or faith conviction. My ‘divine’ word is the relentless, infinite WHY? Why do I take this approach? It’s my form of present truth. Moreover in a macrocosm, I think this is the engine that drives Man in perpetual quest for better understanding of reality.

Lydian, you pay me the ultimate compliment if I have caused you to think about things a bit more.

Yours gratefully
Ken


What is taught at LSU
Dear Lydian

You have a remarkable faith and a wonderful ability to articulate it.

I liked your analogy about God using similar patterns when designing his creatures.

The best sense is common sense and no amount of education can supplant that. What education can do is give common sense the ability to inquire a bit further to examine its initial reckoning.

I hope I possess one tenth of your abilities, if I make it to 86.

Have a wonderful, spiritual Sabbath.
Your friend Ken


What is taught at LSU
Dear Professor Kent

Thank you for your very kind words. I’ve been treated exceptionally well by all and I feel grateful to be able to contribute.

My goal is simple: not to disparage the SDA faith, but ask objective questions about origins.

I do not think anyone should blindly accept evolution but critically examine it to test its merits. Could there be a design element to evolution, hence a master designer? Why not? The question may be how far back the design goes. If a designer, creator, God is omnipotent, then such force could conceive that, basic elements under the right circumstances, could react and adapt to hostile environments. Maybe evolution by natural selection is but a fragment of a far greater design that humans cannot yet fathom. You may gather from this that I am a deist or a theistic evolutionist. I’m not. That would take faith that my empiricism does not allow. I’m not prepared to take such ‘leaps of faith’ because of my agnostic mindset. But in time, these types of theories may gain more credence through scientific and rational inquiry.

Over the last three years I have studied the SDA faith a great deal and have a far better appreciation for it and faith in general. I have a better understanding for why SDA’s believe what they do. And obviously, as so aptly demonstrated on this site, it is by no means uniform! Such is the nature of Man and thought.

I think your comments about primates are fair. The question regarding the design option is why would God design such similarity if man was created in God’s image?

Have a wonderful Sabbath
Ken


Recent Comments by Ken

God and Granite Cubes
@ Sean

I enjoyed your article. As I’ve stated before, I think Intelligent Design is a more modern form of Deism and do not think it is irrational. However, as science on an ongoing basis shows what matters are explainable by cause and effect, less is attributable to conscious design. The question of course is what are the limits of science in this regard? For example, will it ever be able to explain First Cause/

Below is a more fulsome quote of Professor Townes, an self acknowledged Protestant Christian. Please note what he has to say about literal creation and evolution. Do you think he is being more reasonable than you on the nature of design?

“I do believe in both a creation and a continuous effect on this universe and our lives, that God has a continuing influence – certainly his laws guide how the universe was built. But the Bible’s description of creation occurring over a week’s time is just an analogy, as I see it. The Jews couldn’t know very much at that time about the lifetime of the universe or how old it was. They were visualizing it as best they could and I think they did remarkably well, but it’s just an analogy.

Should intelligent design be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in schools as religious legislators have decided in Pennsylvania and Kansas?

I think it’s very unfortunate that this kind of discussion has come up. People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there’s no evolution, no changes. It’s totally illogical in my view. Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.
Charles Townes
‘Faith is necessary for the scientist even to get started, and deep faith is necessary for him to carry out his tougher tasks. Why? Because he must have confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mind – in fact his own mind – has a good chance of understanding this order.’
-Charles Townes, writing in “The Convergence of Science and Religion,” IBM’s Think magazine, March-April 1966
Some scientists argue that “well, there’s an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.” Well, that’s a postulate, and it’s a pretty fantastic postulate – it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that’s why it has come out so specially. Now, that design could include evolution perfectly well. It’s very clear that there is evolution, and it’s important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they’re both consistent.

They don’t have to negate each other, you’re saying. God could have created the universe, set the parameters for the laws of physics and chemistry and biology, and set the evolutionary process in motion, But that’s not what the Christian fundamentalists are arguing should be taught in Kansas.

People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they’re saying, “Everything is made at once and then nothing can change.” But there’s no reason the universe can’t allow for changes and plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one. Maybe that’s a bad word to use in public, but it’s just a shame that the argument is coming up that way, because it’s very misleading. “


Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote

“Yes, I am suggesting that our scientists should also be theologians to some degree. I’m also suggesting that our theologians be scientists to some degree as well. There should be no distinct dividing line between the two disciplines…”

Hello Sean

First of all, thank you Holly for your comments. You have always treated me with civility and charity for which I am most grateful.

Secondly, on reflection, I do hope I was not strident or offensive in my recent remarks. I am a guest here and should behave with the utmost respect regarding my Adventist hosts. After all I was proposing the Chair of ID at an ‘Adventist’ institution! What gall and temerity from an agnostic!

However something Dr. Kime said struck a very strange chord in me: that a Chair in ID at Harvard would be a quantum leap ( forward – my edit) while such a Chair would be a step backward at LSU. I’ m very sorry Wes, but for me to honestly investigate reality such double standard is not acceptable.

I am sad today, because I think I’m coming to the end of my Adventist journey. I really did see ID as a sort of bridge between your faith and objective inquiry about a ‘Grand’ Design. (apologies Mr. Hawkings). Oh Wes , perhaps I am ontological Don Quixote after all, comically tilting towards immovable Adventist windmills. 🙁 .

However all is not forlorn because I’ve made excellent friends of the heart here. ;). I won’t forget you.

Good luck in your pursuit of God.

Goodbye
Your agnostic friend
Ken


Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Wes’s Quote

“. But for a Christian, a great devolution, a great recidivation, a tragic forfeiture, foreclosure, worse. If I were to use the vocabulary of some of our recent posters, I’d not put it as delicately.”

Hi Wes and Sean

I just read again portions on ID from Sean’s website Detecting Design. I am very confused by both of your responses. Why the heck is Sean promoting ID as a scientific theory if this is such a Christian retreat? Perhaps you two differ here? I apologize if I am missing the obvious but I see a tremendous disconnect between what Sean is saying about ID and what he is prepared to do to promote it within the subset of Adventist education.

Your agnostic friend
Ken


Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote

“Public association is one thing. Private association is another. While many do not feel at liberty to publicly associate themselves with our work here (for obvious reasons), most who still believe in SDA fundamentals (and who are aware of the longstanding situation at LSU and other places) feel that our work in providing enhanced transparency for what is being taught to our young people in our schools was/is necessary on some level.”

Hi Sean

The irony here is that those that are supporting institutional enhanced transparency are hiding behind cloaks of anonymity. That’s not how you, I, Wes, Bob Ryan, Wes, Bill Sorenson and many others here behave. Imagine if Jesus hid behind a cloak and didn’t proclaim his nature. What legacy of respect would he have left?

Conviction requires courage period.

Your agnostic friend
Ken


Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Intelligent Design

Gentleman, thanks to all for your fulsome replies.

Yes Wes, I remember your cogent analysis of November 14/11. I appreciared it then and its reiteration now. indeed I was waiting to hear from others especially Sean whose site is named Detecting Design. And, here I agree with Bob, ID
does not necessarily rule out any particular design i. e. fiat
creation ot theistic evolution.

But quite frankly I am disaapointed with Sean’s response, not Sean himself for whom I have deep admiration, because I see this as a step backward. Why? Because if you burn the bridge between science and biblical faith it will not be science that suffers.

Ironically Sean makes many fine, cogent arguments for design in nature so I find his reluctance to promote it formally in Adventist education troubling. Respectfully, I don’t think serious enquiry about reality can creep around the periphery or sneak in through the back door. I’m afraid I see a double standard here.

Yes Wes, I understand why Adventists are nervous on this issue. But if one is seeking the truth about reality one can’t wall it in or burn bridges of enquiry. Wes, perhaps the Hellenic maxim should have not so much: Know thyself, but rather Think for thyself. My park bench in Pugwash is a welcome one but does not feature ontological dividers. It is well designed for truth seekers.

Your agnostic friend
Ken