I don’t know that I would have stated it like …

Comment on Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism by David Read.

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.

David Read Also Commented

Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism
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.

Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism
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.

Recent Comments by David Read

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

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

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

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

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

The Reptile King
Professor Kent says:

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

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

The Reptile King
Well, Jeff, would it work better for you if we just closed the biology and religion departments? I’m open to that as a possible solution.

The Reptile King
Larry Geraty really did a job on LaSierra. Personally I think it is way gone, compromised beyond hope. The SDA Church should just cut its ties to LaSierra, and cut its losses.

As to the discussion on this thread, round up the usual suspects and their usual arguments.

La Sierra University Resignation Saga: Stranger-than-Fiction
It is a remarkably fair and unbiased article, and a pretty fair summary of what was said in the recorded conversation.