Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
So, I gather from Sean’s and Gene’s responses that science can be conveniently bypassed anytime something happens that defies all probability because, of course, an intelligent being had to do it (and not an intelligent creature that might have arisen through random processes on another of the innumerable planets and stars elsewhere in the universe). And, with this loophole reasoning, science can only support creationism and never refute it. Very clever approach.

And sorry, Sean, but it’s disingenuous to suggest that if humans one day show that there is a “natural” way by which life and complexity could evolve on their own, then this would prove God could not have done so. God could have simply used the very same means. Your argument is a false dichotomy.

I see no point in engaging this philosophical mumbo jumbo further. Enjoy your sanctimonious intellectualism.

Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
Many of you continue to claim that Christianity and SDA beliefs are superior because the claims of Scripture can be verified by science (or historical accounts, which are equated with science). You further insist that the claims of atheism and origins through evolutionary processes defy probability, and that anyone who accepts them (or claims of scripture without an evidentiary basis) is a fideist.

Here are a few tenets of evolution that are statistically very improbable:

1. Abiogenesis
2. Construction of molecular machines
3. Evolution of complex molecules (1000 or more fairly specified amino acid residues with a new function)
4. Beneficial mutations keeping pace with or exceeding deleterious mutations in long-lived organisms

Sean points out that the probability of these events happening are so infinitesimally small that they simply could not happen. And therefore one cannot believe in abiogenesis or common descent.

Yet there are many claims of Scripture and Christianity that are clearly refuted by science as well:

1. A living, breathing human can be formed from a pile of dirt upon a voice command (Adam) or from a human rib (Eve)
2. A virgin human (Mary) can give birth to a child (Jesus)
3. A deceased human body can return to life after being dead for three days (Lazarus, Jesus)
4. A living, breathing human can lift skyward without any visible means of propulsion until it disappears from sight (Jesus)

If we are going to claim that our beliefs are superior to those of Mormons or even atheists because we have so-called “reason” and “evidence” to back them, we really should reconsider. Many of the claims of scripture, including these four which are foundational to our beliefs, have been shown by science to be physically impossible. Evolutionary claim #1, for example, is no less scientifically tenable than Scriptural claim #1; yet we mock the former and insist it is impossible, when science offers not a speck more support for the latter. The same can be said for Scriptural claims #2 and #3. There have been trillions upon trillions of mammalian births and deaths, involving a wide range of genome configurations under highly diverse conditions, yet there has never been one recorded instance of virgin birth or a life revived three days subsequent to death. And Scriptural claim #4 has been clearly refuted: humans have experimented endlessly with flight. We have as good a grasp–if not a better–on the physical laws that are defied by the Scriptural claims as we do those that are defied by the Evolutionary claims.

Sean has insisted that these claims of scripture are “metaphysical,” and cannot be falsified. This is total rubbish. Why would “life cannot assemble on its own from basic elements” be any more testable or falsifiable than “a human life cannot assemble from elements of dirt when a sound is made,” or “a human life cannot be assembled from a human rib.” If anything, the latter hypotheses are easier to test, as they are much more restrictive. None of these claims of scripture are any more “metaphysical” than the claims of abiogenesis and common descent. If anything, there have been far more experiments (millions of mammalian births and deaths EVERY YEAR) showing the impossibility of scriptural claims #2 and #3 than all experiments of science to date in the history of mankind that have sought to demonstrate evolutionary claims #1-4 combined.

So, Sean, Wesley, Gene, Ron, Bob, and Phil, upon what basis do you believe that these empirical claims of Scripture, which are as directly testable as many claims of evolution, are literally true when science offers abundant evidence to show they are flat-out wrong? If you are claiming that other evidences from the cannon of Scripture (the stories of a handful of men) can be supported, which prompts you to accept ALL claims of scripture, then why is your “reasoning” superior to the claim that other evidences from the cannon of evolutionary theory (the detailed, replicable experiments of thousands of men and women scientists) can be supported, which prompts someone to accept abiogenesis and common descent?

And who is the “fideist” among us?

Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science

The same is true for the hypothesis that biblical prophecies are real and could only be produced by Divine power. This empirical claim is both testable and easily falsifiable. All you have to do is show one of two things to effectively falsify this biblical claim: 1) that the “prophecy” was written after the fact or 2) that that the prophecy didn’t come true in real history.

And this two-prong means of “falsifying” Scripture also has a convenient loophole. Most Biblical prophecies are subject to interpretation, and spiritual things are spiritually (not empirically) discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14). Thus, fulfillment, as we all know, is very seldom agreed upon universally. And if everyone agrees that the prophecy finds no fulfillment from historical events (if interpreted properly, which will always be subject to disagreement), then the prophecy cannot be falsified, of course, because it is projected into the future.

Again, Dr. Pitman, your empirical test of Scripture utterly fails.

Private Recorded Conversation Prompts La Sierra Resignations

Ron&#32Stone&#32M&#46D&#46: then he “accidentally” recorded the private meeting, right?

That’s exactly right. He must have not bothered to play it back. I think the meeting was a couple hours according to the LSU news release. But basically he didn’t know he had recorded him and the others and then posted it without checking his recording.

The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist

Eddie: Doesn’t LSU’s administration deserve at least a little bit of credit?

I think so. There are some very dedicated individuals on the board.I have no doubt they’re doing everything they can to address this issue.

Blasphemy of a Different Kind
@Ron Stone M.D.: I agree. LSU has not been a shining light for our church. That’s unfortunate. That might be the case for other schools as well.

Former board member never talked with biology faculty
@Alexander Carpenter: I would readily agree since Educate Truth supports the biblical account of creation and disagrees with the handling of the topic in the biology department. This was a political move by Wisbey to gain power on the board. He now has three less who oppose him.

Former board member never talked with biology faculty
@David Read: Board members and even former board members are not allowed to discuss what has happened in board meetings. The only thing I confirmed with Tooma was whether she had conversed with the biology faculty and she made it very clear she never had. She was only presented with the joint statement and wanted to support it. This statement was seen as a big step for the biology department because Wisbey had been keeping them silent for over two years and they were now making constructive advances to dialogue with the church. I disagree with what they said, but I think it’s great their talking now. I suspect Wisbey isn’t happy with the biology department. It wouldn’t make any sense for him to only be upset with the board members since he allegedly embraces what they are doing. Doubtful though given his reaction and double standard.