Comment on Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism by Ron Stone M.D..
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!”
Ron Stone M.D. Also Commented
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.
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.
Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism
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.
Recent Comments by Ron Stone M.D.
The reason the LaSierra situation has gone uncorrected so long is that most of our administrators have exactly the sort of political instincts that Dan Jackson has. They are politicians and consensus builders; they want to keep the peace and make the trains run on time. But the circumstances call for men of principle, hard men who are willing to stand for the right â€œthough the heavens fall,â€ i.e., regardless who is offended and loudly complains.
Dave, I agree with you. Jackson’s trying to play on “both teams” is not going to go well for him.
Unfortunately, politics is the “SOP” of many of our SDA officials, Jackson being just one. “Political instincts” are the rule, instead of actually doing what is “right” according to what we know in God’s Word.
Shane Hilde: Think big fish: LSU or the Seventh-day Adventist Church.Graham might not have followed procedure with these men, but I donâ€™t know what the procedure is. Iâ€™ve read what the process is in the faculty handbook, but I donâ€™t know if that applies to administrative positions which are at will employees. If it does apply to them, then it appears the process was not followed.
Trustees book says, in 6,9,F, that the Trustes may “discontinue” virtually anyone working at the university.
Does that mean to “fire” or to “force their resignation? Seems like it does.
GMF: If what has been reported about Jackson is correct it is very troubling. Also, one can only wonder why he was selected as the NAD President.Iâ€™ve seen a thing or two which made me wonder about Jackson but this report, if true, has to be the worst. May the Good Lord help us!
Jackson was selected to replace Don Schneider, who was also very “passive” in his approach to this problem.
Besides telling Wisbey to “love Jesus” Jackson did virtually nothing.
My Goal for La Sierra University
Sean, Great summary and analysis of the current situation. Another good review of this matter is in the Jan-March 2011 Elders Journal. It also goes into the 2004 evaluation and recommendations, as you have quoted.
Bradley, Beach and Kaatz retain attorney
How about a “class action” suit against anyone and everyone who has heard the tape or has heard OF the tape?