Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism

This article was originally published at AnswersinGenesis.org, but because it is quite lengthy only select clips have been chosen. You may read Jerry Bergman’s entire article here. The abstract of the article says:

A common claim is that no conflict exists between modern neo-Darwinism and orthodox biblical Christianity. The conclusions of many of the most eminent biologists today and a major study of leading biologists were reviewed, finding that they strongly disagree with the non-conflict hypothesis.

[Clip]
Introduction

U.S. District Judge Jones ruled in the 2005 Dover, Pennsylvania Intelligent Design court decision that no contradiction exists between modern Neo-Darwinism and theism. The judge ruled that:

Both Defendants [Dover Area School Board of Directors] and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator (Kitzmiller et al. 2005, p. 136).

Many, if not most, eminent biologists openly disagree with Judge Jones and have expressed this disagreement in the strongest terms possible. For example, University of Chicago biology Professor Jerry Coyne wrote that science has in the past delivered several crippling blows to humanity’s theistic worldview, and the most severe blow was

in 1859, when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, demolishing, in 545 pages of closely reasoned prose, the comforting notion that we are unique among all species—the supreme object of God’s creation, and the only creature whose early travails could be cashed in for a comfortable afterlife . . . like all species, we are the result of a purely natural and material process (Coyne 2009, p. 34).

Coyne notes that the views of theologian John Haught, who testified in the Dover case, about the harmony of evolution and theism, have been soundly rejected by most scientists. Specifically Haught’s view was, although life may have evolved, the

process was really masterminded by God, whose ultimate goal was to evolve a species, our species, that is able to apprehend and therefore to admire its creator. This progressivist and purpose-driven view of evolution, rejected by most scientists, has been embraced by Haught and other theologians (Coyne 2009, p. 34).

[Clip]

The Most Significant Revolution in History

In the minds of many, if not most Darwinists, the Darwinian Revolution has resulted in explaining away the task that once required a creator and has replaced Him by blind, unintelligent and amoral natural laws. This is because

Darwin’s theory of natural selection accounts for the “design” of organisms, and for their wondrous diversity, as the result of natural processes, the gradual accumulation of spontaneously arisen variations (mutations) sorted out by natural selection. (Ayala 2007, p. 8567).

Ayala concluded, noting that

Mutation and selection have jointly driven the marvelous process [of evolution] that, starting from microscopic organisms, has yielded orchids, birds, and humans. The theory of evolution conveys chance and necessity, randomness and determinism . . . this was Darwin’s fundamental discovery, that there is a process that is creative, although not conscious (Ayala 2007, p. 8568).

The fact is, nowhere in Darwinism is there any mention or need for God, or even an Intelligent Creator, a fact which

raised an uncomfortable possibility: If God is not needed to explain the design in nature—which was generally considered the best evidence for a designer—maybe God does not exist at all (Stewart-Williams 2008, p. 19).

[Clip]

This View in Science is Widespread

Surveys of eminent evolutionists find that most agree with those scientists quoted above. For example, Greg Graffin completed a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology at Cornell University under Professor William Provine. His thesis was on the religious beliefs of leading evolutionary biologists. The sample he polled consisted of 271 scientists, and close to 56% completed the entire questionnaire (151 persons). Graffin found that as a result of accepting the Darwinian worldview almost 98.7% of his respondents rejected a traditional theistic worldview and, instead, became functional atheists. He defined theism as a belief in a personal creative God as taught by the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim religions. He added that a San Antonio, Texas, attorney wrote recently to him asking

Is there an intellectually honest Christian evolutionist position? . . . Or do we simply have to check our brains at the church house door?” The answer is, you indeed have to check your brains (Provine 1988, p. 10).

[Clip]

Evolution Anti-Science

The chasm between evolution and theism is not the only concern of theists. Some theists object to what has now become dogmatic evolutionism for other reasons. Noble laureate Robert Laughlin concluded that evolution is actually anti-science. He wrote “of” or “about” his concern that much “present-day biological knowledge is ideological” which, he notes, involves explanations that have

no implications and cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends antitheories because they have exactly the opposite effect of real theories: they stop thinking rather than stimulate it. Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! . . . Biology has plenty of theories [to explain origins]. They are just not discussed—or scrutinized—in public (Laughlin 2005, pp. 168–169).

In other words, Laughlin notes that evolutionism has become an explanation for events for which no explanation as of yet exists. This implies that a valid scientific explanation does exist, which may discourage scientific investigation to find the real explanation.

[Clip]

This View Existed from the Beginning of Darwinism

Nagel wrote that from the start of the Darwinian revolution

it has been commonplace to present the theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection as an alternative to intentional design as an explanation of the functional organization of living organisms. . . . Its defining element is the claim that all this happened as the result of the appearance of random and purposeless mutations in the genetic material followed by natural selection due to the resulting heritable variations in reproductive fitness. It displaces design by proposing an alternative (Nagel 2008, p. 188).

As noted above, Darwin himself made it very clear that his theory displaced God and he felt that an indirect approach was a more effective route to atheism. Darwin had murdered God, at least in the minds of many scientists.

[Clip]

Conclusions

It is clear that the most eminent life scientists of our age agree, and have expressed themselves in the strongest terms on the matter, that a clear, unbridgeable contradiction exists between Darwinism and theism. As Nick Lane of University College, London, wrote

Evolution has no foresight, and does not plan for the future. There is no inventor, no intelligent design . . . Design is all around us, the product of blind but ingenious processes. Evolutionists often talk informally of inventions, and there is no better word to convey the astonishing creativity of nature (Lane 2009, p. 5).

Claims such as Judge Jones’s that no contradiction exists between theism and Darwinism are not only naïve, but as documented above, are grossly uninformed. The common claim that no conflict exists between modern neo-Darwinism and orthodox biblical Christianity is contradicted by the conclusions of many of the most eminent biologists living today. Furthermore, a survey by Griffin of leading biologists found that they strongly disagree with the claim that evolutionism and Christian theism involving a personal God are compatible. Further, they can articulate valid reasons for their conclusion.

In order to facilitate discussion that is relevant to the thread, key terms are provided to act as categorical guidelines for comments: Darwinism, The Dover Court Case, atheism, influence of Darwinism on atheism, conflict of worldviews, influence of Darwinism on SDA education.

Share on Facebook0Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

66 thoughts on “Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism

  1. Great article! The idea that Darwinism is A-OK with Christianity is absolutely ridiculous, although some other religions and pseudo-religions seem to have no problem with it.




    0
    View Comment
  2. Re Ron’s Quote

    Dear Ron

    Thanks for your comments.

    All depends on how one defines Christianity doesn’t it? If one’s definition is very narrow then just about everything else will be excluded won’t it? For example isn’t it true that the Mormons and the Adventists do not consider the other to be Christian?

    Also, although a bit off topic, I don’t think evolution and deism are mutually exclusive. The creation of the universe and its unfolding could be a design, even if we do not understand the nature of the designer(s). Is chance part of design when it comes to the first cause of our universe? Maybe a number of previous universes failed to ignite( big bang) because God(s) lighter didn’t light. Maybe the fundamental material of those other universes didn’t lead to laws of physics that allowed for life to begin. Maybe the designer of our universe, was a design him?self – like the Russian doll within the bigger doll, within….etc. Of course science cannot test these philosophical postulates and has to concern itself with the reality of our universe, in so far as it can.

    This is why atheists’ arguments are limited. Hard for them to argue ex nihilio first cause isn’t it? And that is why I respect the notion of faith, although I don’t ascribe to any one, or non-faith for that matter.

    Good night Ron

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
  3. This is a good article as far as it goes, but the basic premise of Darwinism and theism as not compatible is quite a stretch of logic. To accomodate Darwin one can most definitely conceive of a “god” who either directs evolution or creates matter to let it develop itself (were that possible). What Darwinism CAN’T be compatible with is anything that resembles historical Christianity, with its obvious focus on an active God. That is, to be logically compatible. Goodness knows the world feels comfortable redefining “god” at will into various forms. But isn’t that where we truly part company with the Christian God? Shouldn’t we assume He’s capable of revealing Himself and His activities and do so reasonably accurately? He will “be found” when we seek Him “with all of our heart.” But no casual searcher will be rewarded thus.




    0
    View Comment
  4. What a mishmash of illogical ideas. Sean, what could possibly be your motivation for distributing this article, other that to stir up controversy where none exhists? Many secular scientists may want to use evolution to exclude a creator, but as Adventists we know better. According to Mrs. White, Christ is working imminently in creation, sustaining and guiding every atom. Of course there is evolution because God is still creating and the universal law of emergence is evidence of his ongoing activity. Why would you give secular biologists any more credibility in areas of theology than you give credibility to theologians on topics of science? The genious of Adventism is that our vision is larger, we see how science and the Bible are in complete harmony.

    Get a grip and stop this insane witch hunt. Instead of focusing on that which is devisive, why not focus on what brings unity? There are plenty of theologians who think evolution is compatable with creation, and there are plenty of scientists who believe evolution is compatible with faith in God. Why don’t you focus on them?




    0
    View Comment
  5. @Ron Nielsen: You’re playing loose with “evolution.” No one is debating that change occurs in nature. However, the theory of evolution which suggests that all life originated from a common ancestor over millions of years is what is being argued against.

    Of course there are theologians and scientists that believe evolution is in complete harmony with the Bible. There are people who believe in a lot of crazy things. Just believing in something doesn’t make it rational. The evolutionary worldview is irrational and self-refuting.

    You seem to ignore the plain statements in the Bible and the explicit statements from Ellen White in regard to creation and the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is in direct contrast to the biblical account.




    0
    View Comment
  6. Re Shane’s quote

    “Of course there are theologians and scientists that believe evolution is in complete harmony with the Bible. There are people who believe in a lot of crazy things. Just believing in something doesn’t make it rational. The evolutionary worldview is irrational and self-refuting.”

    Dear Shane

    Precisely right: “just believing in something does not make it rational”
    That is why secularists are so critical of religions and religions of each other.

    That is why science in the debate over evolution/creation is so critical. That, in my humble opinion, is what Sean is trying to nobly achieve. He is trying to put some scientific meat on the bones of faith. If he can do so and defeat mainstream scientific evolutionary theory he will become the ‘Darwin’ of biblical creation. But to do so, he is going to have to convince the majority of rational, scientific minds that he is right. That’s what Darwin’s theory has done so far.

    Good lively debate tonight.

    Cheers
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
  7. Re Ron’s Quote

    “There are plenty of theologians who think evolution is compatable with creation, and there are plenty of scientists who believe evolution is compatible with faith in God. Why don’t you focus on them? Ron Nielsen(Quote)”

    For example: Dr Ben Clausen of the GRI.

    Regards
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
  8. Re Quotes from GC regarding the GRI scientists

    “Most of the presentations by the four GRI staff scientists were thoughtful and helpful. Ben Clausen, in “Belief in Spite of Uncertainty: The Ongoing Faith Journey of a Scientist,” shared first his life experiences – Revelation in stories and texts; Nature; Relating Revelation and Science, “there are no short chronology scientific models;” and People. In each context her shared lessons learned. In Revelation he learned respect, the importance of interpretation, and its limitations. In Nature/Science he learned the same lessons of respect, interpretation, and limitations. In Relating Revelation and Science, he learned that it had been Christianity that had nurtured modern science and the importance of respect for God’s revelation in both Scripture and nature along with the expositors in each of the two arenas (People). It is not really science vs. the Bible but rather there are really two sides within our hearts: faith and understanding contrasted with distrust or blind acceptance. Clausen sees the Sabbath as symbolizing what Anselm said about “faith seeking understanding.” In conclusion he urged us to place our faith in the Bible because there is not enough support from science. He reminded us of the statement in Desire of Ages, page 330:

    In every difficulty He has His way prepared to bring relief. Our heavenly Father has a thousand ways to provide for us, of which we know nothing. Those who accept the one principle of making the service and honor of God supreme will find perplexities vanish, and a plan path before their feet.

    Ronny Nalin, who does sedimentological research in Italy, chose to address a similar theme: “Dealing with Uncertainty.” He answered four key questions:

    1. Have I found the synthesis between the Bible and geology? No, just more unresolved issues.
    2. Should we downplay geology? No, the rocks have a story to tell.
    3. Should we give up our faith when there is conflict? No, faith is not based on empirical evidence (Hebrews 11:1, 2 Corinthians 5:7).
    4. Why is there a conflict? Incomplete understanding is part of the human condition; our God is bigger than we are. The answer lies in knowledge we do not see. Jacob’s struggle and conflict is a good illustration. Genesis 32:31 (NIV) says: “The sun rose above him” even though he was limping. It was a sign of symbolic life after struggle.

    In response to the question, “Please explain dating,” he said, “Radiometric dating is our only method; there is no alternative.” The follow up question was “Then explain six literal days.” His response, ”I feel comfortable because I have a larger world view though it cannot be reconciled with science. There is no shame in having problems.” Another question: “Is there room for believers who think differently in the church?” Response: “Yes, how would you deal with someone who had a mythical experience? No, forget the word ‘mythical’! The main point to realize is that you can’t use Genesis to form a scientific model. If you’re an advocate for other views, be humble, accept the fact that you may not have followers.” Last question: “Are there presuppositions in geology?” Answer: “Yes, the assumptions are reasonable and intrinsically connected with the laws of nature. When it comes to things that are supernatural, you can’t fully understand them, you can just speculate.”

    The presentation by Jim Gibson, Director of GRI, responded to the question, “Do Millions of Years Solve the Problem?” In a nutshell, his answer was “no,” but he carefully spelled out the reasons as follows.

    1. When looking at the fossil record one realizes that Genesis cannot be a condensed version of time.
    2. How about the suggestion that the fossil record could precede the “special creation” of Genesis? This so-called “gap theory” of the Scofield Bible does not work because there is no point in the fossil record where living organisms appear together.
    3. What about putting the six literal days of creation millions of years ago? This won’t work because of the way the fossils are “sorted” in the record. Faith has to be the key because “there is not enough evidence to resolve the tension between science and the Bible; one has to believe the Bible without the support of science.” “Science works well when tests can be repeated; history is not testable in that way.” “Science is a closed system governed by physical laws so tension [with the Bible] has to be expected.”
    4. Could we consider a fourth way for long ages? Maybe God guided the process of theistic evolution. This view was unacceptable to Darwin himself. Otherwise you would have God guiding in birth defects, etc., so “a God of the gaps” approach does not seem helpful.

    In summary, “we can enjoy the benefits of both faith and science but we choose by faith, we are not compelled to choose.”

    There were several questions following this presentation.

    1. Since there are 300,000 beetles alone, how many different animals were given to Adam to name? (The implication being that there may have been too many to name in one day!) The multiplication of animals we have today are the results of predation and disease; that would not be expected in a world declared to be good. Originally there might have been as many as 300 families of land animals.
    2. If there had been a universal flood, wouldn’t all the fossils be thoroughly mixed up in the record? “There are things about the flood that are outside our experience; it is a real problem, there is no good answer. If organisms were distributed before the flood, then sorting had to happen during the flood.” “It is important to know that we have questions we cannot answer.” “The fossil record is enigmatic; I know of no model to explain it—there just is not enough information.”
    3. What about the old earth, young life theory? Many Adventists are comfortable with this.
    4. Will we ever see harmony between science and Scripture? No, Ellen White in Evangelism, page 593, suggests there will always be conflict.
    5. Is evolution scientific? In the book In Search of Deep Time, Henry Gee says no historical question can be considered science. (Read a review of it here.)

    I found these three GRI scientists to be forthright and helpful in their presentations — a refreshing change from some of their predecessors. The fourth scientist, Tim Standish, the organizer of the Yes, Creation! schedule, spoke on “Creation and Evolution: A Brief History.” For those who are familiar with this history, there was nothing that was new. He did, however, in response to several private criticisms from the audience, show his gracious side by apologizing for not treating all questioners with love and respect; he admitted he had been irritated with some of them. After reviewing some of the high points of the history of evolutionary thought, going back to the time of David (Psalm 53:1), he concluded that assertions and truth-claims that are made today are not really data-driven but based on philosophy. In contrast, he asserted the important unity that exists in Adventist doctrine.”

    Dear Shane and Sean

    Gentleman, in light of what the GRI scientists are saying, I think you have your work cut out for you to demonstrate a recent, 6 day literal creation. Obviously the GRI scientists are having great difficulty reconciling their faith with science.

    Sean, I really think the forum needs to hear from you on the observations of these GRI scientists and whether you agree or disagree.

    Respectfully
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
  9. There is no contradiction between orthodox Darwinism and the existence of God, but if orthodox Darwinism is true, exist is about the only thing God has ever done. Certainly the Christian religion is bunk, as Stan Hudson correctly points out.

    You can blend Darwinism with theism and come up with theistic evolution, but theistic evolution is NOT orthodox Darwinism; the idea that God is guiding the evolutionary process is vehemently, vigorously denied by orthodox Darwinists.

    Theistic evolution is a compromise position that is faithful neither to the Bible nor to the philosophy of naturalism that guides modern science. It is a rather obvious attempt to marry theism and atheism, to join the biblical with the pagan. It doesn’t merit anyone’s time or attention. It is very discouraging that there are apparently so many Adventists who are attracted to the chimera of theistic evolution.




    0
    View Comment
  10. You seem to ignore the plain statements in the Bible and the explicit statements from Ellen White in regard to creation and the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is in direct contrast to the biblical account.  

    Exactly Shane. One can “harmonize” Darwinian evolution with the Bible if one simply says that the Bible really doesn’t “mean” what it plainly says, which is what many so-called christians say, including some at LSU!




    0
    View Comment
  11. Get a grip and stop this insane witch hunt. Instead of focusing on that which is devisive, why not focus on what brings unity? There are plenty of theologians who think evolution is compatable with creation, and there are plenty of scientists who believe evolution is compatible with faith in God.Why don’t you focus on them?  

    Please knock off the “witch hunt” baloney. This site is not seeking any “witches” at all, but those that are undermining the plain truth of the Bible and of our Adventists beliefs. We are getting a “grip” and the grip is tightening up on the perpetrators of this apostasy!




    0
    View Comment
  12. @Ron Nielsen:

    Get a grip and stop this insane witch hunt. Instead of focusing on that which is devisive, why not focus on what brings unity? There are plenty of theologians who think evolution is compatable with creation, and there are plenty of scientists who believe evolution is compatible with faith in God. Why don’t you focus on them?

    I dare say that there are very very few, if any, theologians or scientists who believe in evolution or naturalism in general who can point to any particular feature of nature and say, “This required the finger of God or a God-like intelligence”.

    This is the whole point of those like Dawkins and Provine and others who note that Darwinism is only consistent with religion or various beliefs in God if such beliefs are effectively indistinguishable from atheism as far as their ability to produce any solid evidence or predictive value in their behalf. In other words, as Dawkins so eloquently put it, if your belief in God cannot be readily distinguished from a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, or garden fairies, what good is your belief in God?

    This is what is important about the SDA position on origins. The SDA position on a literal creation week and evidence for the literal interpretation of Genesis demands the existence of a God whose handiwork or Signature can be clearly seen in nature as requiring very high level deliberate intelligence.

    Those who disagree are welcome to their opinions. However, they are not welcome to expect, much less demand, a paycheck from the SDA Church to promote their opinions on the Church’s dime. Such a position is not a “witch hunt”, as you put it. It is simply a matter of practicality for any viable organization. No organization can long afford to pay those who go about publicly undermining the primary goals and ideals of the organization…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  13. @Ken:

    Gentleman, in light of what the GRI scientists are saying, I think you have your work cut out for you to demonstrate a recent, 6 day literal creation. Obviously the GRI scientists are having great difficulty reconciling their faith with science.

    Sean, I really think the forum needs to hear from you on the observations of these GRI scientists and whether you agree or disagree.

    Ken a couple of inconvenient details.

    1. Spectrum’s report on the GRI session – was slanted as you state in favor of Nalin and Clausen and it was totally devoid of the devastating blows dealt to evolutionism by Roth and Standish and Spencer and Davidson and about half-dozen other speakers.

    2. Also as your post shows – they emphasized questions but not the answers given to those questions.

    3. And even your own excerpt shows at least one speaker making it clear that there is no possibility of “marrying the Bible” to evolutionism as he explored all the bible-bending options and shows how even they do not work.

    Thus another death blow to the theistic-evolutionist pipe-dream of marrying the Bible to Darwin’s doctrines on origins.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  14. @Ken:

    There are plenty of theologians who think evolution is compatable with creation, and there are plenty of scientists who believe evolution is compatible with faith in God. Why don’t you focus on them? Ron Nielsen(Quote)”

    For example: Dr Ben Clausen of the GRI.

    Not sure where you got the idea that Ben Clausen said that evolution is compatible with the Bible. He certainly did not say that at the GRI sessions in Atlanta.

    His view was more like – the Bible and evolutionism are at odd and science evidence to support a literal 6 day creation work week 6000 years agao is missing. In short Ken – you – as an agnostic would have loved Clausen’s talk except for the part where Clausen argued that he prefers to believe the Bible even though he has not found the science to support it.

    Thankfully the other GRI presenters were not that timid about actually looking for science that reveals the true nature of origins.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  15. Let us say I setup a treasure hunt for kids but at the start I tell them that I hid all the treasure in the backyard on my property. (Because I don’t want them in the front yard, near the street, or in other people’s yard – and I would like them to be succesfful).

    But instead of “listening to me” they claim that “real science of searching” should not “in informed” by the guy that hid the treasure and they look all over the neighborhood as well as in my front-yard.

    Are they being “scientific” or just silly!

    In our case – God is the one who MADE all life and the earth itself – he has given us the clues as to where to look but has not promised that we would “find a video” of him making the world.

    Does it make sense to dump billions of dollars down the rat hole of evolutionism trying to figure out “how birds might come from reptiles”?

    Is that science or just blind-faith in atheist doctrines on origins?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  16. @Ken:

    Clausen sees the Sabbath as symbolizing what Anselm said about “faith seeking understanding.” In conclusion he urged us to place our faith in the Bible because there is not enough support from science.

    I disagree with Ben Clausen. The clear weight of evidence, as far as I’ve been able to tell, is strongly supportive of the SDA position on origins. The genetic, geologic, and fossil evidence all speak to a recent formation of life on this planet and to a sudden worldwide watery catastrophe that produced much of both the geologic and fossil records in very short order.

    Because of this weight of evidence, I think that Ben Clausen has done and is doing the Church a disservice in his employment with GRI. GRI isn’t supposed to be a place where one argues that the only thing we have is blind faith in the biblical statements. GRI is supposed to be a place where scientific evidence is used to back up the biblical statements. If Ben cannot recognize this evidence, then he should be asked to move on and get his paycheck from some organization that is more in line with his personal views and blind faith.

    Ronny Nalin, who does sedimentological research in Italy, chose to address a similar theme: “Dealing with Uncertainty.” He answered four key questions:

    1. Have I found the synthesis between the Bible and geology? No, just more unresolved issues.
    2. Should we downplay geology? No, the rocks have a story to tell.
    3. Should we give up our faith when there is conflict? No, faith is not based on empirical evidence (Hebrews 11:1, 2 Corinthians 5:7).
    4. Why is there a conflict? Incomplete understanding is part of the human condition; our God is bigger than we are. The answer lies in knowledge we do not see. Jacob’s struggle and conflict is a good illustration. Genesis 32:31 (NIV) says: “The sun rose above him” even though he was limping. It was a sign of symbolic life after struggle.

    Such arguments are like saying, “Well, there is overwhelming evidence that the Earth is spherical, but because our sacred text tells us that the Earth is flat, we believe that the Earth is flat in spite of all the overwhelming evidence that is against us.”

    To suggest, therefore, that faith is not based on empirical evidence of any kind is to suggest that the Christian gospel is no more reasonable than believing in a flat Earth or Dawkins’ Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Santa Claus or garden fairies. This notion is completely ridiculous in my opinion – not at all helpful as a solid rational basis for actually believing in the reality of the Gospel’s message of hope.

    If I actually believed like this, I’d have the intellectual honesty to leave the SDA Church and even Christianity behind and to admit that the Bible is really not any more reliable or useful than a collection of moral fables…

    In response to the question, “Please explain dating,” he said, “Radiometric dating is our only method; there is no alternative.” The follow up question was “Then explain six literal days.” His response, ”I feel comfortable because I have a larger world view though it cannot be reconciled with science. There is no shame in having problems.” Another question: “Is there room for believers who think differently in the church?” Response: “Yes, how would you deal with someone who had a mythical experience? No, forget the word ‘mythical’! The main point to realize is that you can’t use Genesis to form a scientific model. If you’re an advocate for other views, be humble, accept the fact that you may not have followers.” Last question: “Are there presuppositions in geology?” Answer: “Yes, the assumptions are reasonable and intrinsically connected with the laws of nature. When it comes to things that are supernatural, you can’t fully understand them, you can just speculate.”

    Radiometric dating methods are not all we have to estimate elapsed time. There are all kinds of other methods to evaluate the passage of time – to include erosion rates, molecular decay rates, sedimentation rates, real time mutation rates, bioturbation rates, etc.

    Beyond this, if the overwhelming weight of evidence is against you, why on Earth do you believe like you do? What is your basis for belief beyond some emotional need for a particular story to be true? And, where is the confidence to be found in a blind-faith emotion-driven belief system?

    The presentation by Jim Gibson, Director of GRI, responded to the question, “Do Millions of Years Solve the Problem?” In a nutshell, his answer was “no,” but he carefully spelled out the reasons as follows…

    Faith has to be the key because “there is not enough evidence to resolve the tension between science and the Bible; one has to believe the Bible without the support of science.” “Science works well when tests can be repeated; history is not testable in that way.” “Science is a closed system governed by physical laws so tension [with the Bible] has to be expected.”

    Gibson is mistaken to think that various views of history are not in any way testable in a falsifiable manner and are therefore not empirically based. There is plenty of physical empirical evidence to support the biblical model of origins which is both testable and potentially falsifiable and is therefore scientific.

    The statement, yet again, that “faith” is all that we have is nonsense. Blind faith, devoid of any backing by empirical evidence, is completely worthless as a basis for a real solid hope in the future. Richard Dawkins, William Provine, and others like them, are correct to note that such appeals to “faith” are no more useful to the believer than is essential atheism when it comes to a rational understanding of reality.

    As far as the details of why I belief that the significant weight of evidence found in geology, fossils and genetic clearly supports the SDA perspective on origins, please refer to my website and the many extensive comments I’ve made along these lines in this forum and in many others…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  17. the idea that God is guiding the evolutionary process is vehemently, vigorously denied by orthodox Darwinists.Theistic evolution is a compromise position that is faithful neither to the Bible nor to the philosophy of naturalism that guides modern science.It is a rather obvious attempt to marry theism and atheism, to join the biblical with the pagan.

    Well stated, Dave. Most Darwinians actually strongly criticize so-called “theistic evolutionists” as being hypocrites, or worse, as the theists try to accept both Darwinism and God’s Word. Both creationists and atheistic Darwinists say they’re basically “nuts!”




    0
    View Comment
  18. Geez, Sean, Clausen, Nalin, Gibson…you seem to enjoy taking on the whole establishment. So it’s time to clean out not just LSU but also GRI. I’ll bet the GC President, who is chairman of the GRI board, is growing quite fond of you.

    I think you push your denigration of “faith” waaaaaaay too far. Here is an example in which you completely overstep your characterization of others.

    Because of this weight of evidence, I think that Ben Clausen has done and is doing the Church a disservice in his employment with GRI. GRI isn’t supposed to be a place where one argues that the only thing we have is blind faith in the biblical statements. GRI is supposed to be a place where scientific evidence is used to back up the biblical statements. If Ben cannot recognize this evidence, then he should be asked to move on and get his paycheck from some organization that is more in line with his personal views and blind faith.

    Why is it that anyone other than you who talks about “faith” can only be talking about “blind faith.” Where do you find evidence that GRI is promoting so-called “blind faith.” We just went through an extensive discussion that seemed unually civil in which there was concession that “blind faith” is not what people who defend “faith” are talking about.

    I think you need to get off your high horse and walk with the rest of us.

    Moreover, although YOU insist there is vast evidence to support creationism and that what little evidence argues against it should not be discussed openly and forthrightly by GRI, there are plenty of people who see things differently for you. Is the new test of employment going to become “their theology and science must agree with Sean Pitman?”




    0
    View Comment
  19. Does it make sense to dump billions of dollars down the rat hole of evolutionism trying to figure out “how birds might come from reptiles”?Is that science or just blind-faith in atheist doctrines on origins?in Christ,Bob  

    Billions of dollars is right, Bob. Also, guys like the Leakeys, their “ape-women” and many others have spent their whole lives trying to find the “missing link” (either in fossils or “behavior”) between other primates, apes, and Man. The result? Absolutely nothing! The more “information” that is discovered, the more confusing it gets.

    No problem for evolutionists, however; they just “adjust” the theory a tad and tweak it until the next “new discovery” is found.




    0
    View Comment
  20. @David Read:

    Theistic evolution is a compromise position that is faithful neither to the Bible nor to the philosophy of naturalism that guides modern science. It is a rather obvious attempt to marry theism and atheism, to join the biblical with the pagan. It doesn’t merit anyone’s time or attention. It is very discouraging that there are apparently so many Adventists who are attracted to the chimera of theistic evolution. 

    So very interesting that you would use the expression ‘chimera’ to describe the mythical amalgamation of theistic evolution. Definitely an ‘attempt to wed theism and atheism.’
    These systems will not naturally reproduce, so their philosophical DNA must be tampered with to make it appear that they can naturally cohabitate and propogate. A sleight of hand, conjured form of amalgamation. A Doublethink mental gymnastics of the highest order.

    Under ordinary circumstances a great deal of cognitive dissonance must naturally be generated by attempting the herculean effort of embracing both of these mutually exclusive, diametrically opposed, and thoroughly contradictory world-views simultaneously in one mind.
    Unfortunately the human brain has a remarkable ‘capacity for irrational, duplicitous, self-deceiving thought patterns.’ This kind of disturbing cognitive dissonance can only be alleviated by:

    1. Changing ones schizophrenic proposition.
    2. Engaging in justifying, blaming, and denying behavior.




    0
    View Comment
  21. Dear Sean

    Thanks for your reply regarding your view of the GRI. No punches pulled there!

    Like I said, I think you really have your scientific work cut out for you, in light of what many of your fellow Adventist scientists at the GRI are saying.

    It’s going to be interesting!

    Have a great Sabbath everyone.

    Cheers
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
  22. I wasn’t there, but if Larry Geraty’s reporting on what Clausen, Nalin and Gibson said was true, it was some astonishingly weak apologetics. Really a bit shocking.

    There seems to be meme developing of “I believe, but the all the scientific evidence is against me.” First, anyone with that attitude has no business giving a presentation the ostensible purpose of which is to bolster belief in the Adventist view of origins.

    Second, as Sean correctly points out, this position makes no sense: if the evidence really is all against us, we should change or belief. So this seems designed as a transitional position on the way to doctrinal compromise. After a while of saying “I believe in the Bible, but the evidence is all against me,” the logical next step is re-examine the biblical interpretation that seems to conflict with “all the evidence.” You can see this happening now, and the pressure to compromise our Adventist hermeneutic will only grow stronger and stronger.

    Third, it is worrisome that Ted Wilson was and is on the board of GRI, and thus will have some emotional investment in its work, while this transitional meme was taking root. What has Gibson been telling him all this time? “I believe, but all the evidence is against me”?

    Several years ago, I met with Art Chadwick and Lee Spencer at a restaurant near the Ontario Airport, to talk about my book which was a very rough draft at that point. They’re both strong creationists, but I remember coming away thinking, “why are these guys so scared, apprehensive, circumspect, etc.” I now understand the vibe I was getting in that meeting. The church is in trouble on this issue. They were paying much closer attention than I was, and they knew it back then. I know it now.




    0
    View Comment
  23. Dear David

    Excellent analysis.

    If the substance of the GRI’s message is that science is not in accord with FB#6, the church has a far bigger problem than the biology department at LSU.

    This is why I think Sean is showing great courage and has got his work cut out for him. When the scientists you hire at GRI publicly don’t support that position what does that say about the credibility of creation science?

    Best Regards
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
  24. You guys sure know how to embellish what others say. David Read writes

    [Regarding GRI staff] There seems to be meme developing of “I believe, but the all the scientific evidence is against me.” First, anyone with that attitude has no business giving a presentation the ostensible purpose of which is to bolster belief in the Adventist view of origins.

    According to the account of the talks, none of the named speakers (Clausen, Nalin, Gibson–whoever these gentlemen are from GRI, I’d love to meet them) were described as saying that ALL the evidence contradicts their view. Further, how can one decide these speakers have “no business” giving a presentation on the basis of only a small portion of their talks, which was subject to interpretation? For anyone who watches baseball, one foul at the plate hardly justifies sending a player down to the minor leagues.

    After a while of saying “I believe in the Bible, but the evidence is all against me,” the logical next step is re-examine the biblical interpretation that seems to conflict with “all the evidence.”

    Do you seriously believe that evidence is going support a flock of sheep appearing instantaneously on a mountainside? Do you really believe that science can verify a supernatural event? And let’s get real: if you are taking the position that you can verify all these beliefs (I’m avoiding the apparently pathetic and much-derided term “faith”), then you have chosen science over God’s simple word and you had better be prepared to go (blindly, I dare say) where the science leads you and not deviate.

    Third, it is worrisome that Ted Wilson was and is on the board of GRI, and thus will have some emotional investment in its work, while this transitional meme was taking root. What has Gibson been telling him all this time? “I believe, but all the evidence is against me”?

    This is inappropriate speculation of what Gibson communicates to Wilson, and is more of the usual character assassination that is so frequent at this website.

    Several years ago, I met with Art Chadwick and Lee Spencer at a restaurant near the Ontario Airport, to talk about my book which was a very rough draft at that point. They’re both strong creationists, but I remember coming away thinking, “why are these guys so scared, apprehensive, circumspect, etc.”

    Who is Spencer? I remember Chadwick, the Southwestern Adventist University fossil hobbyist who publicly attacks other people, but who is this other fellow? Maybe they were scared to meet you. Maybe they were scared to learn what your views were. You scare me.




    0
    View Comment
  25. According to the account of the talks, none of the named speakers (Clausen, Nalin, Gibson–whoever these gentlemen are from GRI, I’d love to meet them) were described as saying that ALL the evidence contradicts their view.

    Clausen said during the GC Session:

    Ben Clausen of the Geoscience Research Institute said that Ted Wilson’s statement put science teachers in Adventist schools in an untenable position. Quoting from the statement, Dr. Clausen said that “it is impossible,” to teach students “scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation.”

    He added: “There are no available models.” -Spectrum

    Clausen made similar comments to the LSU Board of Trustees and to LSU students.




    0
    View Comment
  26. Am I the only one who sees a marked difference between:

    “it is impossible,” to teach students “scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation…There are no available models.”

    and

    “all the scientific evidence is against me?”

    What specifically was he speaking to? Was it radioactive decay (I can’t remember)? Regardless, why should we translate his statement to encompass ALL “evidence” of YEC? He used the phrase “scientifically rigorous.” Did he deny evidence from irreproducible complexity? Did he deny the evidence from other dating methods? Did he deny evidence from molecular change? (Not that any of these truly offer rigorous support.> Did he deny that Satan could make the world appear to be older than it is, which many of you have often suggested here? Exactly which SDA fundamental doctrine did his statement deny which justifies his firing? HE DID NOT DENY CREATIONISM!!!

    Sorry, but its hyperbole like this that gives the impression of a well-organized witch hunt. One that excites the passions. Why does the stoning of Stephen come to mind?

    Do you guys really want to provoke the new denominational president, who as chairman of the board is apparently quite familiar with these guys and made a public statement (as I recall) about how proud he is of Geoscience? Or is this one of those “I dare you to ignore us by not firing these scientists?” We know the reaction when leaders fail to heed the advice of some here.




    0
    View Comment
  27. Professor Kent:

    What did you mean by this statement:

    “Do you really believe that science can verify a supernatural event? ”

    I guess if you believe that a supernatural event CAN happen, are you saying that no science can detect this? videotape? audiotape?
    What is your definition of “supernatural” Is it anything that happens that we don’t have an explaination for at our current level of understanding in 2010?




    0
    View Comment
  28. Professor Kent said:

    “…its hyperbole like this that gives the impression of a well-organized witch hunt”

    “more of the usual character assassination that is so frequent at this website.”

    I guess calling us witch hunters falls out of the definition of character assassination.

    Bottom line: When leaders in our church directly oppose one of our most important fundamental beliefs of our faith, we have every right to question them on it especially when this belief has not changed in over 100 years and they took jobs in our universities in full knowledge of it. It brings to question their intellectual honesty especially in full light that there are plenty of other jobs in the public and private sector where they would be completely free to persue their beliefs – yet they chose to remain in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

    Enough with the “witch hunt” analogy. This isn’t colonial America and the Seventh-day Adventist Church isn’t the only game in town. If you don’t accept, we aren’t going to leave you our in the cold, or starve, or burn you at the stake. We have every right to control the message that our church sends and education that our children receive. If you don’t agree, come to church, sit next to me in the pew, I’ll even wash your feet every 13th Sabbath but don’t expect, however, to be teaching in our Universities.




    0
    View Comment
  29. Sean Said:

    “Those who disagree are welcome to their opinions. However, they are not welcome to expect, much less demand, a paycheck from the SDA Church to promote their opinions on the Church’s dime. Such a position is not a “witch hunt”, as you put it. It is simply a matter of practicality for any viable organization. No organization can long afford to pay those who go about publicly undermining the primary goals and ideals of the organization…”

    Exactly. Don’t confuse this with dis-fellowshiping. Come to church all you want. Just don’t speak for an organization that you completely disagree with.

    There is no recourse to this line of reasoning because it is so sound. This sort of thing happens in organizations all the time. The only way to criticize it is to hyperbolize it to make it look like we want them out of the church and rid of forever (or something like that such as a witch hunt). If you don’t agree with the church’s fundamental beliefs, do the right thing and step down. Cabinet members or politicians do this all the time – and they are considered noble (not witches).




    0
    View Comment
  30. Roger wrote

    Professor Kent:
    What did you mean by this statement:
    “Do you really believe that science can verify a supernatural event? ”
    I guess if you believe that a supernatural event CAN happen, are you saying that no science can detect this? videotape? audiotape?
    What is your definition of “supernatural” Is it anything that happens that we don’t have an explaination for at our current level of understanding in 2010?

    My apologies. I was not clear enough. Yes, there are supernatural events that can be verified, but I don’t see how we could verify the cause.

    I think the bigger problem is that verifying an event which happened in the past, especially when supernatural, is often beyond our means. Sure, we can verify that a volcanic eruption happened in the past, and we might be able to pinpoint a date. But how could we prove scientifically that a flock of sheep appeared instantaneously on a mountain 6,000 years ago? How could we prove scientifically that the virgin Mary conceived a child without participation by sperm 2,000 years ago? How could we prove scientifically that Jesus was resurrected from the dead? You got an answer for these?




    0
    View Comment
  31. Roger, you wrote

    Enough with the “witch hunt” analogy. This isn’t colonial America and the Seventh-day Adventist Church isn’t the only game in town. If you don’t accept, we aren’t going to leave you our in the cold, or starve, or burn you at the stake. We have every right to control the message that our church sends and education that our children receive

    The topic in my post to which you responded was Ben Clausen of the GRI. I take it you advocate his firing from GRI?

    Clausen has been condemned for a statement attributed to him in which he expressed doubt that we could teach a “scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation.”

    Are you suggesting that our university and GRI employees must believe, and perhaps sign an affirmatory statement, that we can absolutely offer a “scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation?”




    0
    View Comment
  32. Who is Spencer? I remember Chadwick, the Southwestern Adventist University fossil hobbyist who publicly attacks other people, but who is this other fellow?

    Okay, my curiosity got the best of me. I Googled a bit–quite a bit, actually–and finally learned that Lee Spencer is a biology professor at Southern Adventist University. Should have guessed (I initially thought he was some pastor of a Baptist church in New York…hurrah for Google). CreationWiki.org listed three publications:

    Spencer, Turner, and Chadwick. 2001. A remarkable vertebrate assemblage from the Lance Formation, Niobrara County, Wyoming. Geological Society of America. Abstracts with Program 33:A499.

    Spencer, L., Kennedy, E.. 2001. Potentially false interpretations of dinosaur nests and nesting, with an example from the Allen Formation, Patagonia, Argentina. PaleoBios, 21, Supplement to Number 2:119.

    Kennedy, E., Spencer, L.. 1995. An unusual occurrence of dinosaur eggshell fragments in a storm surge deposit, Lamargue Group Patagonia, Argentina. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, A-318 55(5):1123 – 1136.

    Two of these appear to be abstracts, which in academia don’t really count. I’m sure the guy is a nice fellow. Apparently he spoke at Yes Creation! in Atlanta. So is he one of the “safe” professors?




    0
    View Comment
  33. He is someone doing research on the existence of DNA bases that should have disolved millions of years before – still existing in rock layers supposedly 14 million years old.

    The idea that his soon to be published research might not really count – I leave for the ever-hopeful evolutionist devotees.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  34. I was a speaker at the Yes, Creation series at the GC (and manned the Geoscience Booth a few days), and have known Ben Clausen (casually) over the years. I think Ben has been affected by various creationist statements over the years that are weak scientifically, in his mind. He is rather rigorous in this, even combative on the idea that Genesis can be supported with a scientific model. I think he does believe Genesis, wishing to place it in a separate mental box, so to speak. Not science, but more personal faith. This is a common practice among some.

    As for me, I prefer stating the obvious weaknesses scientifically of the evolutionary model for origins. They are numerous, easy to explain. And the idea that design is clear should also be easy. Good science is an ally here. But to go so far as to say we can build a “scientific model” for a six-day creation…well, Ben is correct on that. We can’t! And here we do enter into the neighborhood of the brain called “religious faith.” And FYI, that puts it next door to “scientific faith.”




    0
    View Comment
  35. @Stan Hudson:

    I was a speaker at the Yes, Creation series at the GC (and manned the Geoscience Booth a few days), and have known Ben Clausen (casually) over the years. I think Ben has been affected by various creationist statements over the years that are weak scientifically, in his mind. He is rather rigorous in this, even combative on the idea that Genesis can be supported with a scientific model. I think he does believe Genesis, wishing to place it in a separate mental box, so to speak. Not science, but more personal faith. This is a common practice among some.

    This is also my understanding of Clausen’s position. The problem I see with such a position is that it makes the SDA position on origins appear to have no more scientific or even rational validity than those who subscribe to the flat-Earth society. The notion that the SDA position on origins is only a matter of personal faith, despite all evidence to the contrary, is simply not a helpful position in my opinion. One might as well leave the SDA Church given this perspective. I certainly would if I thought the same way.

    As for me, I prefer stating the obvious weaknesses scientifically of the evolutionary model for origins. They are numerous, easy to explain. And the idea that design is clear should also be easy. Good science is an ally here. But to go so far as to say we can build a “scientific model” for a six-day creation…well, Ben is correct on that. We can’t! And here we do enter into the neighborhood of the brain called “religious faith.” And FYI, that puts it next door to “scientific faith.”

    We might not be able to build a scientific model to specifically support a literal 6-day creation week, but we can build one to support a recent arrival of life on this planet as well as a recent and sudden catastrophic model to explain much of the geologic column and fossil record. While not all questions can be answered, of course, the weight of evidence in this regard appears to me to be overwhelmingly on the side of the Genesis account of origins. This adds weight to those aspects of the Genesis account that cannot be directly tested or evaluated in a scientific manner.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  36. Stan, Good to see you online here. Your series on evolution and creation is great, and it is very accurate and truthful without being compromising. I believe your approach is the way to go regarding teaching about evolution.




    0
    View Comment
  37. @ Bob Ryan

    He is someone doing research on the existence of DNA bases that should have disolved millions of years before – still existing in rock layers supposedly 14 million years old. The idea that his soon to be published research might not really count – I leave for the ever-hopeful evolutionist devotees.

    I assume you are speaking of his 2001 abstracts, still apparently unpublished 9 years later. How old is this guy? Where is the current work on DNA in fossils? Why should we believe his unpublished claims, if he has made them, any more so than Ron Wyatt’s fantastic and embellished claims of archeological studies that most SDAs and essentially all non-SDAs dismiss?

    About a year ago I checked virtually every SDA college biology department and found a lot of evidence that these people are publishing good science. I saw next to nothing on origins research. What I’m finding, in fact, is that most of the Church’s “authorities” on creationism are not publishing their research. Most in fact appear to be hobbyists, including some who frequently contribute here. I saw that Leonard Brand and his group at Loma Linda University seem to be an exception with their whale work in South America, for which Chadwick seems to get all the credit here (as a junior author).

    If these guys have solid evidence to back up 6 days 6,000 years ago, why are they hiding it? And if they are not publishing it, why are we condemning those, like Ben Clausen, who tell us very plainly and honestly the evidence isn’t there?




    0
    View Comment
  38. This is also my understanding of Clausen’s position. The problem I see with such a position is that it makes the SDA position on origins appear to have no more scientific or even rational validity than those who subscribe to the flat-Earth society. The notion that the SDA position on origins is only a matter of personal faith, despite all evidence to the contrary, is simply not a helpful position in my opinion. One might as well leave the SDA Church given this perspective. I certainly would if I thought the same way.

    You have got to be kidding. Using your reasoning, the SDA Church would have never become organized in the 1800s, when there was as much scientific evidence to back up a flat earth as there was to support a 6-day event 6000 years ago. But this begs the question, where is there ANY published science TODAY to support a 6-day creation? Where is there any published evidence that humans can be created from a pile of dirt? Where is there any published evidence that life on earth is less than 6100 years? Where is there any published evidence that reptiles cannot evolve into birds?

    If you are going to put “personal faith” second to “scientific evidence,” you need to back up your statement with scientific evidence. Again, I’m a Seventh-day Adventist Young Earth Creationist (by faith, which apparently disqualifies my beliefs), so I would REALLY LIKE to see the amazing proof for these things.




    0
    View Comment
  39. Professor Kent says:

    But this begs the question, where is there ANY published science TODAY to support a 6-day creation? Where is there any published evidence that humans can be created from a pile of dirt? Where is there any published evidence that life on earth is less than 6100 years? Where is there any published evidence that reptiles cannot evolve into birds?

    My answer:

    Professor Kent:

    Obviously you have never heard of The Institution for Creation Research, an apparently independent group which (according to all I have read) is not affiliated or sponsored by any particular church or denomination. They are die-hard creationists and they have the scientists and scientific information to back up their beliefs.

    Their address is: P.O. Box 59029, Dallas, Texas,75229. Ask them for a subscription to their (free) monthly magazine ACTS & FACTS . (Their email address is: http://www.icr.org.) I’m sure they will be happy to add your name to their list.

    My question is this: “Why don’t WE have a publication such as this? Where are OUR scientists in this debate”? We are supposed to be “the head and not the tail” in all things scriptural!

    (The silence is deafening!)




    0
    View Comment
  40. This came to me from my brother-in-law this morning and it is well worth reading. Click on it and I think you will agree. Unfortunately the pictures don’t show up on the web site given here–at least on my computer. But most of you are more computer Geeks than I am so you can probably figure it out (and hopefully) tell those who can’t how to find the pictures.

    The problem is not that there isn’t all kinds of evidence in favor of a Creator-God, the problem is with the stubborn, rebellious, human heart that thinks if it can ignore Him long enough it won’t have to obey Him. And, guess what, it doesn’t if it doesn’t want to!

    But that doesn’t mean there won’t be a terrible price to pay in the not too far distant future. “None so blind as he/she who will not see.” And, unfortunately, the vast majority of those who live on earth today (including many who even CLAIM to be His last-day people) fall into that category! (God doesn’t call US Laodiceans for nothing!)

    http://www.creationconversations.com/forum/topics/the-amazing-camel-designed-by




    0
    View Comment
  41. I hope you realize that camels are perfectly adapted (or created- doesn’t matter) to a post fall (are probably post flood) environment.

    Mark




    0
    View Comment
  42. Obviously you have never heard of The Institution for Creation Research, an apparently independent group which (according to all I have read) is not affiliated or sponsored by any particular church or denomination. They are die-hard creationists and they have the scientists and scientific information to back up their beliefs.

    Lydian,

    Thank you for the advice. Actually, I’ve been aware of ICR and its work for more than 25 years. Much of what they say sounds very nice and all, but much of it is inaccurate and grossly distorts science. I’m sure you don’t want to believe this, and there is no need to. According to my SDA biologist friend, SDA scientists for many decades have not wanted to associate with ICR for good reason. Having read enough of ICR’s material, having listened to their spots on the radio, having heard one of them speak in person, and having heard how professional scientists react to them, I think they border on dishonesty (or ignorance), exhibit unChristlike tactics, and offer a very poor witness to unbelievers. I’m actually less familiar with GRI, but from what I do know I am much more impressed by them.




    0
    View Comment
  43. The problem is not that there isn’t all kinds of evidence in favor of a Creator-God,theproblem is with the stubborn, rebellious, human heart that thinks if it can ignore Him long enough it won’t have to obey Him.terrihref=”http://www.creationconversations.com/forum/topics/the-amazing-camel-designed-by” onclick=”javascript:_gaq.push([‘_trackEvent’,’outbound-comment’,’www.creationconversations.com/forum/topics/the-amazing-camel-designed-by’]);” rel=”nofollow”>http://www.creationconversations.com/forum/topics/the-amazing-camel-designed-by  

    Great site Lydian,

    But evolutionists have a great answer for all those amazing, wonderful “designs.” They all were “needed” to survive, so the camel (or proto-cameloid) simply “developed” them in response to the “need.”

    Think I’m nuts? Then just read any “scientific” or even “un-scientific” article, paper, lecture on evolution. Darwinian evolution can explain “anything” since it must have happened (since it DID happen!).

    How it happened is not explained, except in “theoretical” terms. Have you ever heard of the “explanations” of how homosexuality has evolved and continues as “survival mechanism!”




    0
    View Comment
  44. But evolutionists have a great answer for all those amazing, wonderful “designs.” They all were “needed” to survive, so the camel (or proto-cameloid) simply “developed” them in response to the “need.” – Ron Stone

    Mark Houston was right in pointing out that the amazing camel is exceptionally well designed for life AFTER the flood, and not before it.




    0
    View Comment
  45. Mark Houston was right in pointing out that the amazing camel is exceptionally well designed for life AFTER the flood, and not before it.  

    I guess Mark must be the exception to the rule, since the evolutionists I’ve read don’t seem to mention “the Flood” in THEIR explanations of Darwinian modifications.




    0
    View Comment
  46. In my reference to SAU’s Dr. Spencer – and his ongoing research and evidence submitted this year regarding DNA finds in supposedly 14 million year old strata – I said

    @BobRyan:

    He is someone doing research on the existence of DNA bases that should have disolved millions of years before – still existing in rock layers supposedly 14 million years old.

    The idea that his soon to be published research might not really count – I leave for the ever-hopeful evolutionist devotees.

    Kent replies in his ever-hopeful efforts to dismiss any indication that science might actually support a young life, young earth – model

    @Professor Kent:

    I assume you are speaking of his 2001 abstracts, still apparently unpublished 9 years later. How old is this guy? Where is the current work on DNA in fossils? Why should we believe his unpublished claims, if he has made them, any more so than Ron Wyatt’s

    I for one am very glad to have Kent take is “by faith alone” position against Dr. Spencer’s work without even knowing the details of the study or the status of the independent confirmation on the findings.

    Again – this betrays the lack of objectivity in his approach showing a bias that is remarkable even for an atheist scientist – many of whom would at least like to be informed before prognosticating failure as if they were some kind of pro-evolutionist “prophet”.

    As Colin Patterson lamented about his own fellow atheist evolutionists – they tend to promote their own argument as if it were “revealed truth”.

    About a year ago I checked virtually every SDA college biology department and found a lot of evidence that these people are publishing good science. I saw next to nothing on origins research.

    Well based on the scientists from LLU and SAU that gave their evidence at the “Yes Creation” event this year – you were either not talking to those universities – or you were clueless as to how to get a comprehensive answer to the question about all the research going on in those departments.

    Your determined bias in quoting Clausen and ignoring Dr Roth – again betrays the lack of objectivity in your efforts here. You are being far more transparent in that regard than you may have at first imagined.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  47. @Stan Hudson:

    I was a speaker at the Yes, Creation series at the GC (and manned the Geoscience Booth a few days), and have known Ben Clausen (casually) over the years. I think Ben has been affected by various creationist statements over the years that are weak scientifically, in his mind. He is rather rigorous in this, even combative on the idea that Genesis can be supported with a scientific model. I think he does believe Genesis, wishing to place it in a separate mental box, so to speak. Not science, but more personal faith. This is a common practice among some.

    As for me, I prefer stating the obvious weaknesses scientifically of the evolutionary model for origins. They are numerous, easy to explain. And the idea that design is clear should also be easy. Good science is an ally here. But to go so far as to say we can build a “scientific model” for a six-day creation…well, Ben is correct on that. We can’t! And here we do enter into the neighborhood of the brain called “religious faith.” And FYI, that puts it next door to “scientific faith.”

    The problem I have with Clausen’s cave-in is that any 5th grader in our schools today could simply say “I don’t know enough about science to support what I find in the Bible – but I still choose to believe the Bible”.

    This is a good starting point for our elementary school children. But the whole reason for HAVING a GRI department with actual scientists in it – is to get beyond the elementary school level in our understanding of science and just how – where it does support statements we find in scripture – as well as the critical thinking skills to know just when alchemist storytelling about “birds coming from reptiles” departs from “what we observe in the lab” or can “prove” in any known branch of science.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  48. I for one am very glad to have Kent take is “by faith alone” position against Dr. Spencer’s work without even knowing the details of the study or the status of the independent confirmation on the findings. Again – this betrays the lack of objectivity in his approach showing a bias that is remarkable even for an atheist scientist – many of whom would at least like to be informed before prognosticating failure as if they were some kind of pro-evolutionist “prophet”.

    Um…where is that independent confirmation you speak of? Where is the evidence? Most scientists don’t accept heresay. They want to see the evidence before they accept it, and they want to learn the opinions of those most qualified to evaluate the integrity of the evidence. Surely you recognize these fundamental attitudes scientists have toward evidence. Having spoken of faith and bias, why do YOU accept the claims as fact?

    And why is it so important to you to portray me, over and over, as an atheist scientist when I have stated my faith and beliefs dozens upon dozens of times? I think you owe me an explanation, Bob.




    0
    View Comment
  49. Bob Ryan wrote:

    The problem I have with Clausen’s cave-in is that any 5th grader in our schools today could simply say “I don’t know enough about science to support what I find in the Bible – but I still choose to believe the Bible”.

    The honesty of a child is truly refreshing. How easily their faith is made fun of. How sad that adults attack the honest faith of other adults–and to do so they have to invent a quote to portray Clausen as saying “I don’t know enough about science…,” which is patently deceptive. I am sick and tired of the tactics used at this pathetic website by those who portray themselves as keepers of the “truth.”




    0
    View Comment
  50. I wrote

    About a year ago I checked virtually every SDA college biology department and found a lot of evidence that these people are publishing good science. I saw next to nothing on origins research. What I’m finding, in fact, is that most of the Church’s “authorities” on creationism are not publishing their research. Most in fact appear to be hobbyists, including some who frequently contribute here. I saw that Leonard Brand and his group at Loma Linda University seem to be an exception with their whale work in South America, for which Chadwick seems to get all the credit here (as a junior author).

    To which Bob wrote:

    Well based on the scientists from LLU and SAU that gave their evidence at the “Yes Creation” event this year – you were either not talking to those universities – or you were clueless as to how to get a comprehensive answer to the question about all the research going on in those departments.

    Um, you are right; I was not talking to those universities. I failed to state that I visited their websites, where many post lists of their publications. I would guess, probably with accuracy, that less than 5% of the publications by SDA univerisity biologists involved any kind of creation-type science. Dr. Brand (LLU) and Dr. Esperante (GRI) are lead authors on just about the only papers I saw having to do with origins–and even that is a stretch to call them “origins” research since they merely described fossil whale deposits. It was good research though; I read the papers a year ago and enjoyed them. And I just looked them up again to make sure I have the authors’ names right. Why aren’t other people publishing much on origins, including those at Southern and at Southwestern?

    So you’re calling me “clueless” because I didn’t learn much about the research at those universities?




    0
    View Comment
  51. Kent said “About a year ago I checked virtually every SDA college biology department and found a lot of evidence that these people are publishing good science. I saw next to nothing on origins research.”

    @BobRyan:

    Well based on the scientists from LLU and SAU that gave their evidence at the “Yes Creation” event this year – you were either not talking to those universities – or you were clueless as to how to get a comprehensive answer to the question about all the research going on in those departments.

    Your determined bias in quoting Clausen and ignoring Dr Roth – again betrays the lack of objectivity in your efforts here. You are being far more transparent in that regard than you may have at first imagined.

    Kent replies “So you’re calling me “clueless” because I didn’t learn much about the research at those universities?

    I am stating that your wild claim to have “checked virtually every SDA college biology department and found a lot of evidence that these people are publishing good science. I saw next to nothing on origins research”

    Did not including actually talking to LLU and SAU biology departments and asking about their ongoing research in the area of young-life.

    I am pointing out that your ‘claimed’ objectivity does not go very deep when pressed for the “actual details”.

    I am pointing out that when Roth, Spencer and Standish come to the “Yes Creation” event and talk about the research they are doing and that they have done – you simply dismiss it.

    I am pointing out that you go much farther than this – in your dismissive statements about “the future” claiming to predict the outcome of Spencer’s research without even looking into it.

    You betray your less-than-objective approach to this subject with almost every post.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  52. @BobRyan:

    The problem I have with Clausen’s cave-in is that any 5th grader in our schools today could simply say “I don’t know enough about science to support what I find in the Bible – but I still choose to believe the Bible”.

    This is a good starting point for our elementary school children. But the whole reason for HAVING a GRI department with actual scientists in it – is to get beyond the elementary school level in our understanding of science and just how – where it does support statements we find in scripture – as well as the critical thinking skills to know just when alchemist storytelling about “birds coming from reptiles” departs from “what we observe in the lab” or can “prove” in any known branch of science.

    Kent replied –

    The honesty of a child is truly refreshing. How easily their faith is made fun of. How sad that adults attack the honest faith of other adults–and to do so they have to invent a quote to portray Clausen … (Kent’s Wild yet increasingly obligatory rant deleted here)

    I simply point out that we do not hire scientists at the GRI for “lack of faithful 5th graders” who already can make the claim that they believe the Bible “by faith” and do not yet have science arguments to present in favor of young-life.

    Again – I am stating the obvious – how you choose to bend the point is your choice.

    Roth, Spencer and Standish (among many others at the “Yes, Creation” event) seem to get the point about “research” and the need for critical thinking that is able to present evidence from science in favor of young-life creation, while applying the critical thinking skills needed to debunk a few of the blunders in the arguments for belief in evolutionism.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  53. Dear Professor Kent,

    (My belated response to your August 10 reply to me about ICR. I’ve had my two granddaughters who live in Arizona visiting as well as some other delightful things going on and just haven’t had the time to get a reply sent. I respect your opinions and don’t mean to be “snippy” but do have some questions to ask and some comments to make.)

    **********************

    I quote: (Speaking of ICR:)

    “…, and having HEARD how professional scientists react to them, I THINK they border on dishonesty (or ignorance), exhibit unchristlike tactics, and offer a very poor witness to unbelievers. “

    My response:

    You “think” they border on dishonesty (or ignorance), exhibit unchristlike tactics, and offer a very poor witness to unbelievers?” What is your basis for these “thoughts?”

    And, “having heard…” –who have you “heard” these things from? “Professional scientists”? Frankly, I’m not all that impressed with what most “professional scientist” have to say on any Biblical subject–or about the people who believe and support it.

    I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not a “professional” or any other kind of a scientist but I “think” I am a reasonably intelligent person (some of you may disagree!) And I am also a firm believer in the “Scientist” of Scripture and what HE has to say on the subject so the fact that “professional scientists” don’t think much of ICR doesn’t particularly impress me.

    Maybe I’m just a gullible 86 year old “little old lady” but what I HAVE read and DO understand in their literature I have failed to find any dishonesty in what ICR has written nor have I seen any “unchristlike tactics”. Please clue me in on something where you feel this is actually the case. (And, please don’t quote some of the evolutionary scientist’s conclusions!)

    Maybe I’m showing my ignorance, but I have a hard time believing that the God I have met in my Bible has not left us enough evidence somewhere on planet earth to support what is in Genesis and the rest of the Bible on this–and any other Bible topic. (I’ve read numerous articles and seen DVD’s from various other sources that have been quite convincing about the validity of what the Bible says about our origins.) Yes, there are lots of things in the Bible that must be taken on faith–plain, unvarnished faith, but, in the light of what I have read and have seen I find it difficult to believe that on THE most important “foundation stone” of our religious faith He left NOTHING behind to support it? Really? I just don’t believe it! If it hasn’t really been “found” (and all these things have been false) then we have seriously neglected our responsibility as a people who claim to be God’s “last-day church” and who are supposed to be preaching the “everlasting gospel.“ to a dying–and soon to be destroyed–world!

    I still believe WE should have good scientists who can look at the evidence, and emphatically stand up for God’s truth “in such a time as this!” And it should be peached from our pulpits, taught in our schools, and published in our literature for all the world to hear and read! (We can find plenty who wholeheartedly preach the Sabbath, the 2300 days, the Second Coming–ALL of which are extremely important–but aren’t particularly popular with mainstream religions. So why are we so silent on the creation issue?) If we don’t have any men (or women ) who CAN and WILL stand OUT and stand UP for truth in this area then we have utterly failed to give our children the kind of education they should have had and we need to re-examine our whole educational system from the ground up. (After all, we can’t expect our youth to uphold the “flag of truth” if those of us who are older never gave it to them in the first place!)

    As I said much earlier on another comment, I was stunned when one young Adventist girl–a senior in one of our academies– was “amazed” to discover that the story of Daniel in the Lions’ den really happened and wasn’t just another fairy tale like Cinderella! Come on, this is a young adult who was reared an SDA and had always attended Adventist schools that we are talking about and THIS was all she had to base her faith on? Where were her Adventist parents and where were her Adventist teachers during all of this time? (This young lady has been in our home several times so this is not just something I “heard” from somebody somewhere.) Sadly, she is no longer an Adventist today.)

    I will never forget the shock on her face and the tone of her voice when I showed her the 8th grade Bible book we had when I was in 8th grade, God’s Great Plan. She looked at me in utter amazement and said, “YOU studied THAT in GRADE SCHOOL?” I assured her I did and told her about some of the other Bible text books we had along the way. She couldn’t believe it!

    Later I went to the Book and Bible House and checked on the Bible Text books then currently being used and, I must confess, I was dismayed over what I saw. It appeared to me that they could easily have been used in any other religious church schools. That was many years ago and I have no idea what the text books currently being used are like. I hope they have improved.

    Please don’t misunderstand be. I know for a fact that we have many dedicated, God fearing Adventist teachers in our schools and pastors in our churches that are doing all within their power to teach and preach what we as a people believe. But we must also accept the fact that there are “wolves in sheep’s clothing” among us that are doing whatever THEY can to lead the “flock” astray. From what I have heard and read it seems apparent thet some of them are at LSU and we need to do everything in our power and with the help of God to weed them out.

    The Lambs Follow the Sheep

    ‘Twas a sheep, not a lamb, that went astray,
    In a parable Jesus told—
    A grown-up sheep that had gone astray
    From the ninety and nine in the fold.

    The lambs will follow the sheep, you know,
    Wherever the sheep may stray;
    If the sheep go wrong, it will not be long
    Till the lambs are as wrong as they.

    Ans so with the sheep we earnestly plead,
    For the sake of the lambs today;
    If the lambs are lost, what a terrible cost
    Some sheep will have to pay!
    —Unknown

    As a people we are supposed to be the “heads and not the tails” in all things scriptural. We should be “giving the trumpet a certain sound” in this creation debate as well as in all other areas of our belief–not wandering around in uncertainty on this or any of the other of the truths we hold dear. If we can’t–shame on us!

    I also believe (and I say this with fear and trembling) that we do far to much “nitpicking” in this site. It almost come across (to me anyway) that at times we are just looking for some “slipup” on some brother or sisters comment so we can plunge in and show them where they are “wrong.” The central point on this web site is the issue of evolution being taught in at least one of our institutions instead of our basic Biblical belief that God is the Creator and Sustainer of our world –and the whole universe for that matter.

    Whether you believe it or not, this IS the issue. “Academic Freedom” has absolutely no relevance in this issue. You either support the “hand that feeds you” or you don’t. This doesn’t mean that we will kick you out of the church–you are more than welcome to stay as long as you like (we don’t even discipline you if you don’t pay tithe) –we simply refuse to allow you–or pay you –to teach things anywhere in our organization that we reject as heresy. Whether or not some among us do not believe it is heresy is totally irrelevant. THEY are not are not the ORGANIZATION!

    And as an institution we have a perfect right to our own beliefs and a perfect right to expect those on our payrolls to uphold this belief or else find employment in some place where the things they believe in are taught. A person on McDonald’s payroll while singing the praises of Wendy’s would not last long on McDonald’s payroll. And no one would even bother to defend that persons “rights” when McDonald’s fired them. Why, then all the loud cry of protests over firing someone for attacking one of the things our church was founded on–and is a major part of our corporate name?

    There are some things about what evolution “believes” or doesn’t “believe” that some have different opinions about and we could spend countless hours debating such issues (which, in a lot of ways, we have) but , as I understand it, that is NOT the focal point of this site and (forgive me if I’m wrong) too many hours have already been spent doing just this. The main issues on this site–as I understand it–is, as stated above, the issue of evolution being taught in at least one of our institutions instead of our basic Biblical belief that God is the Creator and Sustainer of our world –and the whole universe for that matter. I believe that if we would stick to that one problem (issue)

    I also believe we need to stop talking about the “strength” of our enemies and how deeply “entrenched” they may be at LSU or any of our other institutions and how “powerless” the rest of us are. By doing this we are only strengthening them in their rebellion. Satan just loves to hear us talk like that. It not only strengthens these individuals in their rebellion but also gives them a sense of power they really don’t have. They are weak, sinful humans like the rest of us and are no match for our God. He is just waiting for US to take whatever bold steps are necessary and HE will provide the power. And we need to HAVE faith and TALK faith and quit our whining! We need to let our newly elected leaders know we stand behind them and will uphold them in our prayers 100 percent.

    Will it be a fierce fight? You better believe it–but our God has never lost a battle yet and if, with sincere contrition of heart and soul and body, we confess, and gain the victory over, OUR own sins and ask His help this battle WILL be a victory for Him and His truth. If God can give David the victory over the fierce Goliath with one small stone in a home-made slingshot he can give His people the victory over Satan and all his mighty angels in this situation. (BUT we must remember that David had to pick up that little stone first, then sling that stone in faith in the first place! God could not have the rock go at the right speed, at the right time, and strike in exactly the right place and do it’s work, if David had been afraid to sling it in the first place!

    May God give us strength to meet this “iceberg” head on and it will crumble at our feet as did the one in Ellen White’s vision. Yes, the “ship” will be mightily shaken and “appear to be sinking” but it will not sink. We may well lose some of our institutions and some of those we now consider our “brightest lights” will also go out–which will be a tragedy–but the “ship” will recover and sail straight into Zion. The future ahead will not be an easy one but God has promised us the strength we need to face it–and the glorious future He has in store for His faithful people.

    As far as ICR is concerned, of course we must recognize that they are human beings and as such are prone to make mistakes at times–who among us doesn’t? But I, personally, have found no reason to see them as anything other than honest hearted people who are both humble enough–yet strong enough–to believe that the creation story as given in the Bible is true and, in their own way, try to DO something about it! May God give us the strength and integrity to “go and do likewise!”–and trust that He will add His blessing to our work. But, rest assured, this is NOT for the faint hearted and WE won’t be getting favorable responses from ‘responsible scientists” either!

    Our best (and worst) days are still ahead of us. Satan knows full well that he has but little time left and he will pour all of his fury on God’s “last day” people. There WILL BE a time of trouble “such as never was” at the end of time and there are signs all around us telling us that we are facing this time in the not too distant future. The overriding question is this: “Will God find US faithful enough to be on board that “ship” and ready to sail into Zion with it? Our “talking the talk” isn’t the most important question for us as individuals, the important thing for us as individuals is “Are we “walking the walk?” No blessing is promised to those who simply TALK about his Commandments–the promise is to those that “DO his Commandments.” These are the ones that will “have a right to the tree of life and may enter in through the gates into the city.” Revelation 22:14.

    We must not be confused, deceived–or complacent. “Those who endeavor to obey ALL the commandments of God will be opposed and derided. They can stand only in God. In order to endure the trials before them they must understand the will of God as revealed in his Word; they can honor him only as they have a right conception of his character, government, and purposes and act in accordance with them. None but those who have fortified the mind with the truths of the Bible will stand through the last great conflict. To every soul will come the searching test, Shall I obey God rather than men? The decisive hour is even now at hand. Are our feet firmly planted on the rock of God’s immutable Word? Are we prepared to stand firm in defense of the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus?{RH, June 7, 1906 par. 2} (And the fourth Commandment makes it very plain that God created this world in six literal, 24 hour, days.)

    What are WE waiting for? May God help US to be David’s, Daniel’s and Paul’s in this time of crisis!




    0
    View Comment
  54. Lydian,

    The issues that relate to ICR’s apologetics are much too complex to deal with here. I prefer not to go into further detail, though others may wish to elaborate. I suggest that if you draw inspiration and conviction from what you read from ICR, you continue to do so. And may you be richly blessed.

    Your friend,

    PK




    0
    View Comment
  55. @Professor Kent:

    Having read enough of ICR’s material, having listened to their spots on the radio, having heard one of them speak in person, and having heard how professional scientists react to them, I think they border on dishonesty (or ignorance), exhibit unChristlike tactics, and offer a very poor witness to unbelievers. I’m actually less familiar with GRI, but from what I do know I am much more impressed by them.

    First of all – I have very little regard for the pro-evolutionist compromised voices that either try to marry the Bible to believe in evolutionism, or that appeal to atheism as their highest set of values and hope to omit the history of proven fraud so central to evolutionism from the perception of the public when considering the storytelling of evolutionists.

    They have alrady shown themselves to be less than trustworthy – why “go to them” for a character reference for ICR???

    If you have actual quotes from Creationists actually doing research or promoting scientific solutions for YEC or YLC that is critical of ICR – provide the quotres. If all you have is endless evolutionist rabbit trail after rabbit trail accusations, and personal bias devoid of reliable fact – then reserve them for the funny papers.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  56. So now Bob writes

    If you have actual quotes from Creationists actually doing research or promoting scientific solutions for YEC or YLC that is critical of ICR – provide the quotres. If all you have is endless evolutionist rabbit trail after rabbit trail accusations, and personal bias devoid of reliable fact – then reserve them for the funny papers.

    Here is a “funny paper” quote for you:

    Some creationists are opposed to the ICR. Gary North “opposes the ICR on the grounds that they” acknowledge the second principle of thermodynamics, and John W. Robbins considers the ICR’s activities a “fraud.” The old-Earth creationist organization Answers In Creation criticizes the ICR, including a critical review by Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D of the ICR’s dating claims. – WIKIPEDIA (on INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH)

    I don’t have time to look further, and I’m not going to respond to this again. Perhaps someone else would like to share his thoughts on ICR. I take it you yourself agree with ICR’s position on Intelligent Design (ID):

    Henry M. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) wrote, in 1999, that ID, “even if well-meaning and effectively articulated, will not work! It has often been tried in the past and has failed, and it will fail today. The reason it won’t work is because it is not the Biblical method.”




    0
    View Comment
  57. I strongly support the ID work that is being done and I will grant you that Morris is being short sighted in that remark.

    The flaw that people like Morris see in ID is that ID is not Christianity, it is not the Bible, it is not a literal 7 day Creation week.

    It was never intended to be.

    It is not a substitute for the Bible model on creation.

    It is simply observed science fact that is consistent with some models and not with others. It gives evolutionists the creeps – but as Morris notes it is so far from being Bible creation – that many agnostics and non-Christians easily join in with the ID school of thought.

    As Paul claims in Romans 1 the ID fact is so blatant that even non-bible-aware pagans are “without excuse” when they try to ignore it.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  58. Thanks for your responses. Leaving in he morning for California to visit my sister and her husband. No time to comment now and may not be able to for some time.




    0
    View Comment
  59. Couldn’t go to bed without making this short response:

    All I said was:

    You “think” they border on dishonesty (or ignorance), exhibit unchristlike tactics, and offer a very poor witness to unbelievers?” What is your basis for these “thoughts?”

    And, “having heard…” –who have you “heard” these things from? “Professional scientists”? Frankly, I’m not all that impressed with what most “professional scientist” have to say on any Biblical subject–or about the people who believe and support it.

    I added that I was not a “professional” …. “but what I HAVE read and DO understand in their literature I personally haven’t seen any dishonesty or unchristlike tactics.” I further added that I would like some evidence that this was the case. I still feel the same way.

    I am not qualified to argue the “fine points” of evolution with anyone and I really do not wish to.. My sole confidence is in the Word of God. He says , “The evening and the morning were….” I understand that to mean a 24 hour period–which is supported by other Bible texts. Others may consider me simple minded–and perhaps I am–but I don’t know that is altogether “bad.”

    On the other hand I do not wish to follow “cunningly devised fables” or recommend something to others that will lead them astray–so I would still like to see where ICR is either “dishonest” or “exhibits unchristlike tactics.” Is that too much to ask?

    Please excuse mistakes–it is now past midnight and I have to get up at 3:30 AM in order to get to Atlanta and get on that plane. Bye for now.




    0
    View Comment
  60. I don’t know that I would have stated it like Henry Morris did, but I agree with his sentiment. ID is not our fight. Our job is to uphold biblical history, for biblical reasons, to wit, to maintain the necessary logical, biblical foundation of the Christian religion.

    Any fool can see that life was designed; mainstream science doesn’t even have a credible hypothesis about abiogenesis. It hardly seems necessary to belabor the point. Our efforts should be directed toward geology, and showing that the earth can be as young as biblical history makes it. If the earth is young, there was no time for mega-evolution to happen, so there’s no need to refute it in detail; you kill two birds with one stone.




    0
    View Comment
  61. BTW – when our supposedly “Theistic” evolutionist friends go to the extreme of arguing against ID – they are unwittingly taking a “distinctively atheist” position because that is the only reason for wanting to avoid the ID element that Paul says even the pagans are “without excuse” for ignoring.

    When our Creationist friends oppose ID they are simply pointing out that ID is far short of the Bible doctrine on Origins.

    It is like say of a Picaso — “well this paint appears on this canvas as if it did not happen by chance — it appears to be complex design not possible by random forces alone”. That comes far short of appreciating the painting for what it is — but it is still ‘minimum truth’ and spartan level of fact.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  62. I strongly support the ID work that is being done and I will grant you that Morris is being short sighted in that remark.
    The flaw that people like Morris see in ID is that ID is not Christianity, it is not the Bible, it is not a literal 7 day Creation week.
    It was never intended to be.It is not a substitute for the Bible model on creation.It is simply observed science fact that is consistent with some models and not with others.

    I have read a number of Morris’ books, and he has many good points. ID has both Christian thought leaders and some non-Christian. The main point that I get out of ID is that there are many people who see flaws in Darwinian evolution, and they are not all “crazy” Christian fundamentalists.




    0
    View Comment
  63. You “think” they border on dishonesty (or ignorance), exhibit unchristlike tactics, and offer a very poor witness to unbelievers?” What is your basis for these “thoughts?”

    Okay, Lydian, I’ll give you but two examples since I feel badly you have taken offense. There are others.

    #1 – ICR once stated how the author of a book was wrong when it claimed that Darwin’s Finches had “evolved.” ICR mockingly pointed out that the finches did not turn into eagles or mice or anything else. All that happened was that their beaks changed shape as a result of “natural selection” and that no “evolution” had occurred. ICR reassured us that “evolution” was impossible. This characterization of the book was absolutely misleading because the author described how the beaks evolved in shape and never suggested anything beyond that. The author had in fact carefully described how “evolution” of the beaks (call if “microevolution” if you wish, it’s still evolution) had happened by natural selection. By definition, if natural selection happens, evolution happens. Of course, ICR was using the word “evolution” in a macroevolution and/or abiogenesis meaning, and they should have never conflated these meanings with those of the book author. The analogies used and mischaracterization of the author were patently wrong. Either they knew it and did this deliberately, or they were remarkably ignorant. Some months ago I visited their website and saw a few articles that I felt similarly misrepresented the science on origins and evolutionary change.

    #2 – For years, ICR hosted public creation/evolution “debates” in which they made every effort to ridicule and antagonize those with whom they disagreed (much like the language used and attitudes expressed here). I never attended one of their debates, but I have spoken with Christians and non-Christians alike who attended the debates and who were keenly disappointed with the unChristlike tactics used by ICR staff. If one simply browses the internet, they will find plenty of reaction to these debates, including assertions made by ICR scientists that were shown to be incorrect, but then repeated again as if they were correct. I don’t know whether they continue these debates today.

    I have no doubt that ICR does much good. However, my personal position remains that “they border on dishonesty (or ignorance), exhibit unchristlike tactics, and offer a very poor witness to unbelievers.”

    For some reason, the only criticism I have ever seen of our fellow Adventists at GRI has come from this website. The criticism is that a few individuals at GRI (I forget their names; I don’t have time to backtrack to see them) tell us that our views are opposed by considerable evidence and that we must excercise our faith in God’s word in spite of what science tells us. I do not understand why more “faithful” readers here do not take offense in these attacks of GRI. I find it interesting that I make a negative statement about ICR and I get criticized roundly, yet others here make negative statements about GRI (for defending your faith!) and get praised for their critical remarks! What is wrong with all of you readers who refuse to speak up in defense of GRI and your faith?




    0
    View Comment
  64. Not only do we have the atheist centric beliefs central to darwinism that dictate atheism… we also have the uniquely atheist argument made against I.D. dictating a conclusion for atheism.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.