Edwin says, May 7: “Ultimately, …

Comment on Silence of the Geoscience Research Institute by Lydian Belknap.

Edwin says, May 7:

“Ultimately, we believe that science will be found to support the biblical account, but that day has not come yet. Meanwhile, we need to walk by faith, not by sight. (See John 20:24-31; Heb 11:1,3,6.)”
Sorry to disagree with you Edwin, but that day HAS come! I have no idea what the GRI is doing at present but all anybody has to do is to go to the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) and ask to be subscribed to their “Acts and Facts” magazine. It’s free and written by top-notch scientists who whole heartedly support the creation story in the Bible–and produce the evidence to support it. They don’t accept the Sabbath but otherwise are solid creation scientists and make no apologies for it. They put us to shame!!!

Ervin Taylor says , May 17:

“It seems to me that the scientific staff of the Geoscience Research Institute (GRI) needs our understanding, sympathy, and forbearance, not condemnation. They have been given a difficult, if not impossible, task by the leadership of Adventist Church who now gives them about $1 million a year. GRI scientists currently face the same problem that previously confronted scientists supported by the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR) beginning in the 1950s.”
I don’t mean to be critical of the GRI but this things has been going on for decades now and it appears to me that something should have been heard from them years ago! It also seems to me (and forgive me if I’m wrong) that an awful lot of responsible people have been “asleep at the wheel” for a mighty long time and this has allowed this heresy to grow from a “baby” to a full-sized “monster!” And what could have, and should have, been met with Christ-like firmness many years ago is now going to take tremendous action (and likely many more lost souls) to root out and eradicate this deeply rooted “cancer” in our church–even if it is possible to do so(which is questionable.)

Even today, after this thing has been more or less exposed for what it really is for almost a year now, I see very little response from either the leaders or the GRI. I hope they are all planning on a real defense of our most important fundamental belief at the upcoming GC but, forgive me, I just don’t hold out a lot of hope for it!

Think about this: After all, if the creation account “goes down” it will take down our whole church with it.I may be wrong, but to me,it is THE major “corner stone” for everything we as a people believe and preach. If we can’t believe God here we can’t believe Him anywhere–and we are left in the river of life in a boat with holes in it and fast filling up (with nothing to bail it out with)and without a motor, oars, or even a couple of sticks to help us navigate the rough waters of life. I sincerely hope and pray that I am wrong!

Lydian Belknap Also Commented

Silence of the Geoscience Research Institute
Sounds good to me,Allen Roy. I didn’t know that about the GRI.

Recent Comments by Lydian Belknap

A New Endowment Program for Adventist Education
So here I sit–a “very old lady”–totally confused and not having a clue as to whether to donate or not–or where to donate if I should.

As things stand now I think I will just continue putting my own little amount to my current “missionary out reach” of buying “Steps to Christ” and “Who Do You Think You Are?” and passing them on to the clerks in the stores where I shop or other people I meet that I think would like them.

If and when you folks decide on what, how and where to help in this very worthy project let me know and I’ll do what I can then.

A New Endowment Program for Adventist Education
I just noticed that there is such a program in place in northern California but I would want one that is nation wide. After all, if our kids aren’t already in danger here in the southern union also (as well the rest of the US) it’s most likely only a short matter of time till they will be.

A New Endowment Program for Adventist Education
I am far from a wealthy person who could and gladly would donate large sums of money to such a program but I could and would gladly donate some if such assurances were solidly in place. I’m sure there are many “old folks” like me “out there” who feel the same way. (Is there already such a program in place? If so please post all needed information.)

The God of the Gaps
While browsing my rather voluminous file of articles to “save” I ran across this jewel—I think it is worth saving and thinking about–especially the last statement by Darwin himself:
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

While Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy — a plausible mechanism called “natural selection.” Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – Slowly But Surely…

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, “…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.” [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an “irreducibly complex system”. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called “the hammer,” a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we’ve made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist

Michael Denton wrote, “Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.” [5]

And we don’t need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin’s day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” [6]

1. Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” 1859, p. 162.
2. Ibid. p. 158.
3. Michael Behe, “Darwin’s Black Box,” 1996.
4. “Unlocking the Mystery of Life,” documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.
5. Michael Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” 1986, p. 250.
6. Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” 1859, p. 155.

I don’t think Sean could have said it better himself!

Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
Sean, I guess I “bit off more than I can chew” when I subscribed to some of your other options.
All I can handle is the ^way it used to be”–like this column still is. Please put me back to this mode of information and I will be very happy. Thanks.