The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account

Posted by Educate Truth Staff

Editor’s note: The author wishes to remain anonymous, because of the
political climate surrounding the issues being discussed.

Since the 1960’s LSU (formerly LLU-LS – La Sierra campus of LLU, until 1990) has gradually changed. The primary change began in the early 1970’s. A group of LLU-LS faculty initiated a branch church in downtown Riverside, called City Parish. It was probably a good idea, but in the operation of that church over several years a group of faculty with similar goals and beliefs coalesced around a vision for LLU-LS. Their vision was to move the campus away from being a sectarian university that teaches SDA beliefs, and (as was at times openly stated) to take LLU-LS out of the SDA educational system.

The primary persons involved in this faculty group were from various disciplines, including religion, biology, physics, modern languages, math, history, and education. There also were other sympathizers who were not an active part of the group. The “group” worked, over a number of years, to gain political strength with the other faculty. During those years the LLU central administration was based at Loma Linda, leaving the La Sierra Campus with weak leadership in some ways. The group capitalized on that situation and the resulting faculty distrust of administration, to gain political strength.

During that time some members of the “group” proposed and launched an honors program called the Interdisciplinary Program (generally referred to as InterDip). The teaching in that program followed the vision of the “group.” Ronald Numbers was at that time teaching a class on the history of medicine for the LLU Medical School, and also was one of the primary teachers in InterDip courses, along with a LLU-LS religion faculty member. Several LLU biology graduate students were teaching biology labs, and from conversations with InterDip students they learned that the two InterDip faculty had largely convinced these students that life was the result of evolution over millions of years, and not special creation. The biology graduate students requested the Dean of the College to have faculty in the biology graduate program at Loma Linda give a series of lectures in InterDip to counteract this influence. This was done. A few years later a new Dean closed down InterDip, because of the negative influence it was having.

In 1980 the Dean of the College of Arts and Science resigned, and a search committee was formed to choose a new Dean. Somehow the “group” managed to fill all but one position on that search committee. They launched an elaborate process designed to appear very democratic, while actually aiming from the start to install their candidate, who was at that time Dean of the Graduate School, as the new Arts and Sciences Dean. Their plan didn’t work, thanks to the decision of the LLU President. It did result in the choice of a person poorly prepared to be Dean, resulting in a few difficult years for all. That Dean finally resigned after serious decline of his health, the departure of his wife, and other problems.

The “group” had plans for changing some academic departments to better meet their vision, with the priority areas being religion and biology. The Dean of the School of Religion was Kenneth Vine. His views didn’t match the “group’s” agenda. For example he removed one religion faculty from teaching the course on Ellen White when he learned that this person presented a very negative view of White. Vine was near retirement age, and when he retired the “group” was delighted. The chair of the department of biology was far from retirement, so a different strategy was employed. The biologist in the “group” took on the task of diverting the biology department from its commitment to biblical creation, to a more evolution-focused philosophy. In order to do this he would have to become chair of that department. He made serious efforts to accomplish this goal over a period of 5 or 6 years, largely by political maneuvering. The biology faculty were not sympathetic with his vision for the department, and he failed to accomplish it.

When LLU and La Sierra ended their twin-campus collaboration in 1990 the “group” had more success in establishing their political leadership at La Sierra, now La Sierra University. They successfully selected the person of their choice as President of the new University, and in a few years replaced him with another of their favorites. After the biology graduate faculty left La Sierra in 1990 and became the Department of Natural Sciences at LLU, the new chair of the department of biology at LSU was successful, over the years, in guiding the department to follow the vision of the “group,” replacing any interest in a literal creation with teaching that urges the students to accept evolution over millions of years as the true story of origins. There is reason to think the faculty of religion have followed a similar path.

This history has brought LSU to its current position, with some leading faculty seeking to turn students away from the long-established beliefs of the SDA church, to a set of beliefs more in line with many mainline protestant denominations.

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

85 thoughts on “The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account

  1. I attended City Parish a number of times as a medical student, and I’m not surprised it was a factor in starting the downward spiral that we see at LSU. Priding itself on its “social gospel” and the Gospel of Inclusiveness” it was easily a “nesting ground” for what is explained above.

    BTW, whatever happened to it?




    0
    View Comment
  2. “they successfully selected” is right–Fritz Guy then Lawrence Geraty then Randall Wisbey. All left-wing liberals who value secular humanistic philosophies over God’s Truth. Is it any wonder we have this problem at LSU?!




    0
    View Comment
  3. Interesting. The fact that this conspiracy has been well over 30 years in the making gives a good idea as to how difficult, and what a long process, it will be to undo the damage.




    0
    View Comment
  4. “Ephriam is joined to idols, let him alone.”

    This may have an application to LSU. At some point, it becomes a “dead horse”. In the next few months some obvious conclusion should be forth coming. And at this point, it might be advantageous for Educate Truth to at least branch out beyond LSU.

    You might want to keep LSU on the interest list with updates, but for myself, and I can’t speak for others, the interest is becoming less and less. Not because I don’t care. But because the issues have been pretty well exhausted.

    Do other SDA schools teach like LSU? If so, which ones? What other bible issues are confronting the church today besides evolution?

    If you want to capture more readers, you might want to expand your format. Or, if you have no other burden, you may not. I know it takes a lot of time and even money if you expand too much.

    Most forums have about 20 regular posters with a few others from time to time. Some “lurkers” read and never comment. For me, A-today, and Spectrum are utterly and totally boring. Their posters are for the most part narrow minded and biblically ignorant.

    They trumpet one note on and on. And it doesn’t matter what the subject is. And those who read and/or post over there know what I am saying. I still read their dialogues occasionally, but find no real challenge to spiritual concepts that are biblical. Pretty shallow and superficial is my evaluation. But I am sure they considered my challenges with the same conclusion.

    Happily for me, they run me off. But whether they like it or not, I can still read anything they post. I hope Shane and Sean will branch out some and be more inclusive with more current topics in the near future.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  5. Conspiracy theories will never fail to draw attention. Out of curiosity, do only the “bad” people “conspire?” Or do “good” people ever join hands and “conspire” as well–or do we apply a different term for this sort of thing?




    0
    View Comment
  6. @Professor Kent: While this is a conspiracy, it is not a conspiracy theory. I have absolutely no reason based on my knowledge of the author and other facts about LSU that the information in the article is reliable and true.* This person was in the fray of it all. This isn’t someone who merely researched this, thus the ‘eye-witness account.’

    *I have absolutely no reason, based on my knowledge of the author and other facts about LSU, that the information in the article is unreliable or false.




    0
    View Comment
  7. Shane, I don’t disagree with your position. I was only reacting to David Read’s use of the phrase “conspiracy theory,” and I was trying to do so respectfully.

    I think that power struggles occur in every institution. Alliances inevitably form–for power or ideology, for self-preservation, for simple friendship, for myriad reasons good or bad. I think the more applicable term here would be an “alliance” rather than a “conspiracy.” We all recognize that the word “conspiracy” conveys a negative tone. Would we want to say that the GC “conspires” to maintain a core set of fundamental beliefs? I don’t think so.

    Actually, I don’t think that policies enacted by alliances are necessarily difficult to break. And, as the survey underway may very well show, a change at LSU may already be underway. If, per chance, their data support this (I know my optimism is unpopular here), I hope that some will begin to offer praise rather than continuing criticism, and actually credit SDA and LSU leadership for effectiveness.




    0
    View Comment
  8. Again, the question is begged: Why would they work so hard to change the university rather than just leave and go where universities already believe the way you do? Dare I say that there lies a larger conspiracy that transcends LSU and that may be going on at your local SDA instituation? Again, why the push over a generation to change a whole university and to denude it of its fundamentals?




    0
    View Comment
  9. Just a note of affirmation. I still appreciate the Educate Truth updates on this situation with LSU. Yes, our Leaders have addressed the Creation issue head-on at the recent General Conference Session and affirmed our stand as God’s people, but what is going to happen to see that every loose end is tied up. I don’t want to see this issue fall into darkness and be forgotten about. I want to hear about all the developments towards the full resolve of this horrible situation. Any school that bears the name SDA, and finds support and recognition from our church, had better be teaching God’s sacred truth! Otherwise they have no right to bear the name of an institution designed to radically train and equip our younger members to carry the Three Angel’s Message to all the world in this generation. Satan is no dummy! He attacked Moses as a baby. He attacked Jesus as a baby. And he loves nothing more than to destroy Adventist children before they can ever take hold of and carry the Creator’s message to the whole world.

    Educate truth, Please keep these issues before the public and help us to know the full resolve of this situation. We want to know what is happening at any school called by the same name as God’s last day church! Let’s not lose sight of what’s happening at La Sierra. I think a similar accountability for all of our schools to every Adventist member is in order. We must be assured of the Spiritual condition of every institution we might choose to send our kids to…and take NOTHING for granted!! The USDA assures meat consumers of the quality of every meat product so that the consumers know their getting the quality food they are paying for. Why not Adventist Education?!!!! The stakes are too high and eternally lasting to not ensure that we’re getting the spiritual training required to survive as an SDA Christian in this disgusting world of sin! What are we eating?! Let’s check it out!

    I know for a fact, that we have other serious problems in other of our colleges. Having just graduated in 2009 I was quite attune to some of the problems. Not every place is so bad. But, in my own experience at PUC I had problems. Certainly, not every teacher or anything. But I do find it disturbing when a Professor from the History department holds a public forum on our campus (2004/2005) and describes to all of our students how we need to “re-evaluate our eschatology” and how the 1st beast of Revelation 13 or the harlot of Revelation 17 “doesn’t” point out the papal church as a danger to the Christian faith. It gets even more disturbing to me when the head pastor of the college church is sitting in that public forum and says nothing at all; then afterward he comes over to congratulate me for expressing my “views” at the meeting…but how he doesn’t exactly agree with me. Okay then. Are we not all SDA’s then? [edit – off topic]

    Is this not disturbing to anyone else besides me? We must have far more accountability in these matters at our schools. We should draw these matters out in the open.

    Educate Truth, please continue your work to ensure “full disclosure” of the issues happening at our schools. People love to hide in the darkness of sin…and none of them want to “come to the light, lest their deeds should be reproved!!!!” (Jesus, John 3). If their behavior was so “innocent” why then should they complain that we must ensure fully intact and consistent Adventist education? They attempt to fulfill and please all of the world’s standards and requests; they make every effort to comply with the requests of their “accreditation bodies.” They love to please the world. How about pleasing God and their organizational employer–the SDA church? WASC tries to be thorough in their quality inspection. Our schools submit to that…no problem! Why not a faith and practice inspection? Why don’t we ensure that God’s message is actually taught and upheld? And if not, then drastic reform or amputation needs to happen. Is the school doing God’s work like it should, or is it helping the devil? If the latter, it cannot have the support or approval of God’s church in the slightest!

    Thank you Educate Truth for the work you are doing bring these issues to light! We’ve needed this for a long time!




    0
    View Comment
  10. Since this author outed so many individuals, don’t you have an ethical obligation to publish their name? After all, this person is supposedly concerned about the “political climate surrounding the issues being discussed,” yet this article is exactly the sort of thing that inflames that political climate. One of the explicitly stated goals of this website is “transparency.” Well, let’s have it.




    0
    View Comment
  11. Prof. Kent, we look forward to singing the praise of SDA and LSU leadership for any forthcoming effectiveness, especially if it is effected through honour and biblical principles.




    0
    View Comment
  12. It seems that ‘Conspire’ is more of an underhanded move by some in an unofficial capacity, while ‘ally’ is more of a sanctioned behavior. The difference between the two is primarily the one action being an allowed official behavior, while the other is a subversive behavior in rebellion to or against officially accepted behavior. In this context, ‘conspire’ is the correct word.

    When I read the eyewitness account, I was struck by the similarity to the story of the rebellion in heaven, when Satan conspired against the government of heaven to ‘free’ its inhabitants from the ‘constraints’ of God’s Law. Revelation 12:7,8,9 goes on to say that “…there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels. And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out….”

    In heaven, the ‘dragon’ and his angels were cast out. Will that happen at LSU? Only time will tell.

    I think a battle is still brewing over this (with LSU) which will become more intense if the church does take a definite stand (which it should). We should all be prepared for it, because it will likely get pretty ugly.

    As in heaven, so with LSU: Each person will have to take a stand. Each will have to take sides. These ‘conspirators’ are more out in the open now. They have prepared for battle, and I don’t think they have any intent of coming under the direction of or submitting to the control of the board (if it isn’t also compromised), nor of the church at large. They feel in control, and they aren’t going to back down. LSU as an Adventist university may be a lost cause.

    Again, the similarities to the rebellion in heaven seem glaringly obvious. The words spoken by the prophet Samual to King Saul in 1 Samuel 15:23 seem applicable here too: “For rebellion [is as] the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness [is as] iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee….”




    0
    View Comment
  13. “they successfully selected” is right–Fritz Guy then Lawrence Geraty then Randall Wisbey. All left-wing liberals who value secular humanistic philosophies over God’s Truth. Is it any wonder we have this problem at LSU?!  (Quote)

    Indeed Fritz Guy has since then made his choice for error clearly known to all. In so doing he has shed some light on the back-room strategies worked out in past years – confirming many of the statements made by the author of the text above.

    I have stated numerous times on this web site that there are those at LSU whose agenda is to “make LSU the best public university that Adventist tuition, offering and tithe dollars can buy”.

    The author of the article above stated the same thing in this way

    Their vision was to move the campus away from being a sectarian university that teaches SDA beliefs, and (as was at times openly stated) to take LLU-LS out of the SDA educational system

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  14. This whole situation at LSU has been so disheartening to me. I graduated from LSU in 1990 and my husband in 1992. We have 5 children and our oldest is now a senior in academy. We no longer live in California and because of what has happened, we have discouraged all of our children from attending LSU or PUC. My daughter will be attending Southern Adventist University next year. I think that many parents have done the same thing. We spoke with someone at Southern last week because we will be attending an upcoming preview there in October. The person at Southern said that they are bursting at the seams and that this is the largest Freshman class in the history of Southern. Praise the Lord! I can’t help but think that some of this added enrollment is due in part to the LSU situation. I don’t want to send my children to an SDA institution that does not uphold the morals, values, and beliefs of the church. I’m hoping that this will happen at Southern.




    0
    View Comment
  15. Whatever happens to LSU the denomination needs to be thinking about LLU, Andrews, WWU and others that are facing internal struggles with this issue.

    There is a lesson to be learned in the LSU story — Given time and sufficient political maneuvering the conservatives will gradually retire and the pro-evolutionist group will eventually gain control of both religion and biology departments.

    The reason for that is four fold –

    1. Our SDA professors are being urged to get their doctorates from non-SDA all-evolution all-the-time universities as this helps with accreditation and ranking. They tend to get “first pick” if they do that – and they know it.

    2. The degree to which our students are exposed to actual pro-Creation science is limited though we have a few schools with good initiatives. Most of the pro-creation emphasis our students get is from the religion department. There are groups like ICR and Discovery Institute that aggressively push the creation sciencce aspect, in fact the SDA denomination is credited as the founding-father of creation science. But sad to say – and aside from Discovery Institute we are drifting into neutral and are no longer “known” in the creation science groups for being in a leadership role.

    We should have stayed at the “head” on this one and the fact that we talked ourselves into drifting back to a neutral milk-toast position has had long term bad effects. Creation science visionaries like Ariel Roth are becoming more the exception than the rule.

    3. The junk-science religion of evolutionism is NOT the EASY problem of Kellogg’s “Living Temple” where if you turned off the power to the source – the light simply goes out. Our schools are still obligated to teach the basics on evolutionism – even when they believe it to be false religion.

    This problem will not be fixed until we publish our own books on the subject – exposing evolutionism for what it is – stating its claims and exposing its flaws. As long as we send our students and professors to pro-evolutionist text books to get their information – we are risking the very problem Ellen White was warned about in such cases.

    4. The general Adventist population of today is much less informed and focused on Bible topics and the writings of Ellen White (per capita) than in prior decades. Thus liberalism in general has gained a strong foothold even apart from evolutionism. That means that even non-evolutionists at all levels of leadership will often be in the form of liberals whose primary model is “to each his own” in an all “I’m Ok you’re OK” – can’t we all get along model of protectionism regarding bad ideas. In their view it is much worse declares something to be wrong or evil – than it is just to let the evil continue. In their thinking – if you are nice to people who have wrong ideas – they will eventually all have good ideas and if evolutionists don’t come around to truth – who cares because God loves us all anyway and isn’t that the whole point?

    For the liberal mind set – the only real danger in error – is that it might stir up a conservative to say somebody is “wrong” in way that makes that person “feel less than”. In their mind – meeting the problem “head on” is the worst possible choice. Better that libs and conservatives simply “have more church socials”.

    That group is possibly several orders of magnitude larger than the number of actual pro-evolutionists among us. They will oppose efforts to solve the problem even while they agree with creationism.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  16. It is truly disheartening to see to what an extent SDA education has succumbed to the wiles of liberalism. I note that one writer said her kids were going to Southern. A close relative who attended Southern a number of years ago remarked that her impression was that the administration wanted good behavior on campus but didn’t really care what one did off campus.

    I hope that this website continues with its emphasis on LSU even if it hasn’t resources to reach out to discover what is transpiring on other campuses. Walla Walla has had its Alden Thompson who is a lefty. Washington Adventist University is no gem from my visit there. Maybe it’s endemic. One can hope and pray that the recently elected GC Administration will in time be able to bring reform to fruition.




    0
    View Comment
  17. I took a course or two taught by Fritz Guy in the late 60′. He reminded me of the professors I had in Germany who were all trained in Protestant, actually, Catholic universities since our church has no schools for advanced degress. Others students in my class were divided over being quite conservative SdA’s, wich I was one of, to more liberal. Most of the liberals were shaken out and perhaps 1 or 2 who were conservative, then, later, studied for their PhD and one, I talked to a couple years ago, is not conservative any more. It is hard for many to get through advanced degrees and still believe the scriptures as they read. They cannot see that evolution distorts the ancient history of the Bible lands because they try forever to connect some culture to the Neanderthals when human history does not trace further back in time then about 2200 BC, with one post Flood Ice Age.
    That is what I studied out with a e-mail friend, the history of the Bible lands. We discovered written evidence that the Queen of Sheba was Queen Hatshepsut, that Shishak was Thutmose III, that the Amarna period belongs in the days of Ahab, that Ben Hadad was known under several names including Ashurnasirpal of which I was able to find some proof in old archaeology magazines from 1905 I believe it was. That makes Ramses II pharaoh Necho of the Book of Jeremiah and the Greek authors whose chief of staff was Necharomes, (garve found in 2002) – the name is made up of Necho – Ramses. As the king’s diplomat he had the right to name himself after his master and how he was non in Egypt and by the Greeks.
    That makes Ramses III Nectanebo and puts the 21st Dynasty into the period of Persian occupation of Egypt.
    More could be said of course, but just to let people know, the 18th dynasty started with King Saul. The Exodus took place in Old Kingdom times. Setting history up like this correlates kings from neighboring countries, events and achievements. Unfortunately, once scholars had decided on a chronology (before all the evidence was in) and wrote expensive books, magazines, etc. falsity assumes a life of its own and they just squeeze and cut and hack all the evidence (layers they dig up and pottery) to make it fit. The fall guy was the Hebrew Bible.
    All this is related to evolutionary thinking, a master piece of Satan.
    Jesus called the Queen of Sheba, the queen of the south because Egypt, like Palestine, was under Roman control. They had no rulers of their own who amounted to anything.
    Our scholars all subscribed to these errors. They couldn’t see the forest for the trees. They could not see, that, if history goes beyond 2200/2300 BC, there is something very wrong. They were blinded by the wine of Babylon.
    I always wondered, how come some of the teachers I could never see in church, where they might be, now I understand.
    Maranatha
    Johnny Z




    0
    View Comment
  18. Since this author outed so many individuals, don’t you have an ethical obligation to publish their name? After all, this person is supposedly concerned about the “political climate surrounding the issues being discussed,” yet this article is exactly the sort of thing that inflames that political climate. One of the explicitly stated goals of this website is “transparency.” Well, let’s have it.  

    @John Turner, I agree with you 100%. If we are going to be “transparent” we need to name the names of those involved and not be afraid to do it. We’ve already named many. Why should the rest involved be treated any different?




    0
    View Comment
  19. @Benjamin Burkhardt, Your experience at PUC is truly disturbing to me also. I have three relatives currently attending PUC, and they keep me informed of some of the issues.

    [edit – off topic]




    0
    View Comment
  20. BTW, I have reported the matters at PUC to Jim Pedersen, President of the NCC. His response? We will continue to “dialog” with these guys! When I asked him WHAT there was to dialog with–no answer!




    0
    View Comment
  21. Do other SDA schools teach like LSU? If so, which ones? What other bible issues are confronting the church today besides evolution? Bill Sorensen

    Bill, PUC has many problems similar to LSU, but I don’t think evolution is a major one. I have three relatives, two majoring in science, who say that “evolution as fact” is NOT taught there.

    [edit – off topic]




    0
    View Comment
  22. Bob Ryan wrote

    Our SDA professors are being urged to get their doctorates from non-SDA all-evolution all-the-time universities as this helps with accreditation and ranking. They tend to get “first pick” if they do that – and they know it.

    Really? Where do you get this factoid? (I’m not disputing you; I simply don’t know the facts…but I will ask my SDA biologist colleague about this.)

    When I reviewed the SDA biology departments about a year ago, I recall seeing quite a few faculty having earned their doctorate from Loma Linda University, and it looked to me at the time that they had a pretty good program. If I recall correctly, LLU had the only doctoral program in biology, though other schools offered master’s degrees (I forget which ones).

    I think the bigger program, which most everyone recognizes, is the utter lack of biology PhDs coming through the pipeline–whether trained at LLU or elsewhere. At one point, someone who went by Eddie urged discussion of options to help resolve this dilemma, but no one was interested in this. So many people here are eager to see the “errant” biologists resign, or be fired if need be, but for some odd reason no one seems concerned about who will replace them. Apparently, Eddie gave up. Similarly, the former president of PUC offered to nudge along a discussion of how to better retain our youth in the Church, but he was mistreated here and gave up as well.

    I’m afraid that most EducateTruthers think only in terms of a top-down solution: let’s force administrators to get rid of the “offenders.” The reality is that the situation will only improve when bottom-up strategies are discussed with seriousness: how do we get some high-quality, faithful biologists back into our ranks?




    0
    View Comment
  23. Thank you Educate Truth. And I want to thank all of you for the informations that are circulation around the forum in support of to our God. I can not stop praising God for all the efforts taken by the Educate Truth.

    May God bless you all. Please continue the good work. I love to read all the comments on both sides of the table, but truth will always prevail for Jesus Christ is in control.

    Sailasa




    0
    View Comment
  24. the former president of PUC offered to nudge along a discussion of how to better retain our youth in the Church, but he was mistreated here and gave up as well.

    Prof, Richard Osborn offered a solution to retain our youth, which was to teach them MORE secular humanistic philosophy, which would take the place of all that SDA bible-based stuff, which he thought we had too much of.

    He was not “mistreated” but simply had to defend his ideas, which he was incapable of, so he decided to leave.




    0
    View Comment
  25. Shane, I don’t disagree with your position. I was only reacting to David Read’s use of the phrase “conspiracy theory,” and I was trying to do so respectfully.I think that power struggles occur in every institution. Alliances inevitably form–for power or ideology, for self-preservation, for simple friendship, for myriad reasons good or bad. I think the more applicable term here would be an “alliance” rather than a “conspiracy.” We all recognize that the word “conspiracy” conveys a negative tone. Would we want to say that the GC “conspires” to maintain a core set of fundamental beliefs? I don’t think so.

    Actually, I don’t think that policies enacted by alliances are necessarily difficult to break. And, as the survey underway may very well show, a change at LSU may already be underway. If, per chance, their data support this (I know my optimism is unpopular here), I hope that some will begin to offer praise rather than continuing criticism, and actually credit SDA and LSU leadership for effectiveness.  

    A conspiracy is pushed in secret, and nobody knows there is an orchestrated effort for change, or what the end goal will be. Thus the scenario put forth in this account is describing a classic conspiracy. Whereas the reformers and promoters of true tend to avoid conspiring in darkness, and rather publish the views, beliefs, agendas, and goals publicaly. The GC cannot be accused of conspiring to maintain it’s publicly promoted and published beliefs for the very reason that they are the current, publicly available and published, stated agenda of that organization. The only the the GC could “conspire” to do, would be to change it’s published views to something they have not made public. If the beliefs are out in the open, and the goals are officially stated, then it can not be considered a conspiracy.

    Therefore the word conspiracy is correct for this “account”. Also it would be correct for these efforts to have a negative connotation attached to them, since they were done in secret, and with political maneuvering, which I see as a nice way of saying “flattery” which the bible tells of is of the Devil. Furthermore, the bible also puts “those things which are done in secret” in a negative connotation. Secrecy is a synonym for darkness, only evil deeds are done in secret or in darkness.




    0
    View Comment
  26. One thing satan hates more than anything else is have his plans revealed.

    But one must always be careful his full plans are revealed and not gossip about them.

    We should not gossip, but we should bring everything to the fore to be examined…




    0
    View Comment
  27. @Roger Seheult:
    At LSU they are the big fish in a little pond.If they go somewhere else, they will be newbees.So why not build up their “own” University where they run things like they want?  

    This is exactly what has been going on at LSU for many years, and the Board has had its head in the sand while it has taken place.




    0
    View Comment
  28. The name “Seventh-day Adventist” will no doubt be the “offense of the cross” in the near future.

    We have a strange name unlike any religious group in history. Because our name defines to a large degree our doctrine, it is inevitable that those who abandon the doctrine will also abandon the name.

    When the liberals see they can’t change the name, or the doctrine, and the name comes with the stigma of legalism, they will abandon ship.

    Paul said in his day, “No one can call Jesus Lord, except by the Holy Spirit.” That was because persecution was inevitable if you named the name of Jesus. And no one would do it unless they had strong spirit filled convictions of the truth of Christanity.

    Just so, in the near future, no one will call themselves a SDA for the same basic reason. Now, anyone and everyone can confess the name SDA and no one cares or challenges them substancially. This will soon change.

    Unless you are ready for the charge of “legalism” to be attached to your confession of faith, you are not and probably will not be able to abide the name SDA. EGW has clearly defined bible Adventism and those who oppose her will eventually oppose the church.

    In the not too distant future, we will see a shaking that EGW called a “terrible ordeal”. Each of us must be able to define clearly our faith as articulated and expressed in the bible.

    “My church believes and teaches” will have no validity and a “thus saith the Lord” will be paramount in the defense of the true faith. Many today are willing to say, “The church has decided” and they sell their individual accountability for a “thus saith the church”. Such spirituality will never stand in the days ahead.

    The last several decades have seen a spiritual errosion in the SDA church that parallels the early church apostacy when the Sabbath was abandon and heathen customs and rites entered the early church. We are in the “falling away” that parallels this period of history. I am sure none of us feel we are truly ready for what is to come. But we can at least see and know that it is near, even at the doors.

    It is still my hope that Educate Truth will branch out in a more comprehensive dialogue on other important church issues.

    Keep the faith

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  29. @Bill Sorensen: The thought has crossed my mind to branch out, but at this point in time I think any effort to address anything else would water down the affect of Educate Truth.  

    I agree with you Shane. Although I am one who emphasizes that there are many other issues, we need to take care of this problem first. And, by “take care of” I mean actually DO something, not “adjust” as Graham and his Board have tried and failed at already.




    0
    View Comment
  30. (‘Don’t know if you can use this somehow. It will be food for the hungry soul!)

    THE GENESIS ACCOUNT: Fact or Fiction?
    A Series of Scientific Studies
    by Arthur Chadwick, Ph.D.

    Dr. Chadwick received his Ph.D in biology from the University of Miami. Professional memberships include: Geological Society of America, Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists, American Association of Petroleum Geologists and the Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists. His research in geology and paleontology has been published in major scientific journals.

    Seventh-day Adventist Church
    19585 Elder Lane
    Groveland, California

    October 15 and 16

    Friday evening 6:00 “Mount St. Helens” (video)
    7:00 “Evidence from the Fossilized Forest” Dr. Chadwick

    Saturday morning 9:30 “The World that Perished” (video)
    10:00 “Evidence from the Grand Canyon” Dr. Chadwick
    11:00 “Molecular Complexities of the Trilobite” Dr. Chadwick
    12:00 LUNCH IN THE SOCIAL HALL

    Saturday afternoon 1:30 “The Case for a Creator” (video)
    2:30 “Megatrends in Paleocurrents” Dr. Chadwick
    3:30 “Evidence from the Grand Canyon” Dr. Chadwick
    4:30 LIGHT SUPPER IN THE SOCIAL HALL

    Saturday evening 6:00 “The Search for the Real Mt. Sinai” (video)
    7:00 “Evidence Fresh from a Dinosaur Dig” Dr. Chadwick

    Don’t miss the “Early Bird” videos–they are GREAT!




    0
    View Comment
  31. Several years ago, I read the book, Keys of This Blood by Malachi Martin, a Jesuit. He was bold enough to state that they had infiltrated enemy territory. Are we so naive to think that we are exempt from infiltration? By their fruits we shall know them.




    0
    View Comment
  32. This is ridiculous, an author who won’t identify himself spreading rumors and but not naming the individuals involved (I assume since he knows they would rightfully deny the conspiracy). I am a mid-level employee in my company. If I and a group of friends could get together and make sure the leaders in my company think the same way I do that would be great, I would get better evaluations and bigger raises.




    0
    View Comment
  33. @Professor Kent:

    I’m afraid that most EducateTruthers think only in terms of a top-down solution: let’s force administrators to get rid of the “offenders.” The reality is that the situation will only improve when bottom-up strategies are discussed with seriousness: how do we get some high-quality, faithful biologists back into our ranks?

    I agree that some attention should be paid to how we can get “high-quality, faithful biologists back into our ranks.”

    Who, in your opinion, qualifies as an “EducateTruther”? Someone who comments here? Someone who agrees with our stated goals and purpose?




    0
    View Comment
  34. @Ron Stone. Yes, those names you mentioned from PUC are among the ones I know of who are promoting the full acceptance of the [X] agenda at PUC. [edit]

    This website is not about other hot-topic issues that are not related to the issue of origins. Such comments will be deleted.




    0
    View Comment
  35. Dr. Stone

    Prof, Richard Osborn offered a solution to retain our youth, which was to teach them MORE secular humanistic philosophy, which would take the place of all that SDA bible-based stuff, which he thought we had too much of.

    I was aghast with the exchange between you and Dr. Osborn. You flat out misquoted him them and you are totally mischaracterizing him right now. Most objective readers here who saw your exchange would agree with me.

    Dr. Osborn did not advocate more secular humanistic philosphy to retain our youth. He simply pointed out that research suggests that relationships rather than doctrines are what tend to keep youth from straying from the Church. Those who have good relationship and communication skills intuitively understand why this might be the case. He never said he thought we had too much Bible stuff. To the contrary, he pointed out that the amount of Bible teaching appeared to correlate poorly with Church retention. He quit for one very clearly stated reason: because you continued to argue with him by making claims about his comments that were not at all accurate. You went so far as to put quotation marks around comments you attributed to him that simply did not match what he wrote.

    Please, Dr. Stone. Go back and read his comments again.




    0
    View Comment
  36. And now to clarify: what I meant by “correlate poorly” is a lack of an association, and not a negative association (many here may not understand statistical terms well). I’m not criticizing Bible teaching in any way, and neither did Dr. Osborn.




    0
    View Comment
  37. Paula Nixon wrote

    At LSU they are the big fish in a little pond. If they go somewhere else, they will be newbees. So why not build up their “own” University where they run things like they want?

    As popular as this stance seems to be, most of you don’t seem to understand the reality of southern California. Non-denominational Christian institutions absolutely thrive here. LSU would probably fare much better if they left the SDA Church. But the simple fact remains that, from their many public statements, they clearly wish to remain Seventh-day Adventist.

    Can you folks please offer encouragement for them to remain SDA rather than penalizing the vast majority of faculty and students who remain loyal to even the most fundamental of SDA beliefs? I simply cannot grasp why you would wish so much harm on so many for the sake of the few who do not stack up as worthy in your judgment.

    Mr. Hilde, perhaps you could comment on your personal wishes for the future of LSU. Your opinions carry much more respect here than mine.




    0
    View Comment
  38. @ Shane Hilde

    I agree that some attention should be paid to how we can get “high-quality, faithful biologists back into our ranks.”

    I get the feeling it’s not going to happen. If you can encourage further exploration of this, it would be a positive contribution to the dialogue here and to the Church.

    Who do you consider “EducateTruthers”? Someone who comments here? Someone who agrees with our stated goals and purpose?

    Good questions! And fair, too. I’d say “yes” to the latter question. I used the term in a purely descriptive sense, though in times past I have admittedly used the term in a pejorative sense. I apologize if I’ve offended.




    0
    View Comment
  39. There is a bigger “conspiracy”, of course. It should not be regarded as surprising that Satan is actively infiltrating our church and it’s various subdivisions and associated organizations.

    I heard a story in a sermon, which I believe is a true story, and some here may even be able to validate it. The specifics are a bit fuzzy in my memory, but the main points are intact. The story goes that Ellen White had a vision on one particular day, and after the vision she immediately wrote a letter to the president of a particular SDA college/university. I think it may have been PUC. The letter arrived in the president’s office as he was conducting an interview for a new faculty member. The secretary informed the president that a letter from Sister White had just arrived, and he immediately paused the interview to read it. He was nearly in disbelief as he read the letter, repeatedly looking up at the lady who was there for the interview. The letter described this woman perfectly, and warned the president that he must not hire her, for she was an agent of Satan. He read this out loud to her, and she immediately left in a huff.

    It’s foolish to think that everybody in the employ of the Seventh-Day Adventist church is automatically a good-intentioned God-fearing individual. Or even to think that those who have contradictory views are merely “misled”. Some are, of course, merely misled. But, there are most certainly cases where they are not misled at all, but are agents of evil working intentionally toward the destruction of souls, or at the least intentionally attacking our organization from within. Some might think they’re doing the right thing by pretending to be SDA while secretly holding un-SDA beliefs and trying to subvert our people to abandoning what we teach and believe. Others might literally be worshipers of Satan, actively seeking the destruction of souls.

    We, as a church, need to all remain vigilant, keeping watch for the wolves in sheep’s clothing. We will “know them by their fruits”.

    —————————-
    Regarding the scope of this website, I think there would be much use and benefit of it being increased to cover similar situations in other schools, and in other branches of the church. I would be quite surprised if there were not any other like it to be found.




    0
    View Comment
  40. Kevin, The story you related may be true, but it would not make any liberal in our Church change one bit. Why? Well, even Ellen White may have been “right” on some issues. That doesn’t mean what ever else she said was true, accurate, or in any way helpful to our postmodern world.

    If you think I’m nuts, then go over to Spectrum or AT and read some of the articles and posts accompanying them.




    0
    View Comment
  41. @ Shane Hilde
    I used the term in a purely descriptive sense, though in times past I have admittedly used the term in a pejorative sense. I apologize if I’ve offended.  

    As one of the “MD dudes” I take no offense!




    0
    View Comment
  42. The idea that to be educated one must be aware and versant in evolution theory is a faulty idea. We are to be naive concerning evil and wise concerning good. Truth can alway afford to be open to view and doesn’t need “help” by those who have educated themselves in alternative views.
    This issue is not debatable in the usual sense. Both sides are religious beliefs. One must choose which one is their belief. Actually, we don’t choose what we believe—we reveal who we believe.




    0
    View Comment
  43. The idea that to be educated one must be aware and versant in evolution theory is a faulty idea.We are to be naive concerning evil and wise concerning good. Truth can alway afford to be open to view and doesn’t need “help” by those who have educated themselves in alternative views.
    This issue is not debatable in the usual sense.Both sides are religious beliefs. One must choose which one is their belief.Actually, we don’t choose what we believe—we reveal who we believe.  

    @ Bill Cowin, You’re entirely correct that Darwinian evolution IS a religious idea (world view perspective)as deeply held as any other religion might be. It is part of Secular Humanism, which has a “Manifesto” (creed) of beliefs which anyone can read. One of its major tenets is “evolution!”

    I disagree, however, that it is not valuable to understand humanistic philosophies, but not to debate or defend them, but to understand the major weaknesses of them, of which Darwinian evolution has many.




    0
    View Comment
  44. @Bill Cowin:
    The reason for understanding the evolutionary theory is for the sake of the evolutionist whom we love and seek to help. The most convincing scientific arguments for Creation are from individuals who have taken the time to listen and know the arguments of for evolution. ‘Know your enemy.’ It prepares you to meet the errors intelligently and objectively. Obviously the ultimate decision between the two belief systems is based on faith, but that is what the evolutionist does not understand unless he can be shown his unscientific logic.




    0
    View Comment
  45. If you want to capture more readers, you might want to expand your format. Or, if you have no other burden, you may not. I know it takes a lot of time and even money if you expand too much.

    Great idea Bill! La Sierra isn’t the only game in town for sure. Everywhere I look the church is faster and faster fulfilling Ellen Whites below prophecy:

    “Satan will work his miracles to deceive; he will set up his power as supreme. The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out–the chaff separated from the precious wheat. This is a terrible ordeal, but nevertheless it must take place. None but those who have been overcoming by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony will be found with the loyal and true, without spot or stain of sin, without guile in their mouths. . . . The remnant that purify their souls by obeying the truth gather strength from the trying process, exhibiting the beauty of holiness amid the surrounding apostasy” (Letter 55, 1886). {7BC 911.6}.

    It is all of God’s truth that we must stand on if we shall be in the kingdom at last. We can only expose so much error and then it becomes useless debate and arguing for which I’ve done more than my share. I think when the devil has victories like this at LSU, and the rest of us spend copious amounts of time hashing and re-hashing the same old lame errors, then the devil ties us up in knots when we should be promoting the 3 angels messages more often in some capacity. Obviously nothing will be done at LSU in my opinion, or it would have already been done.

    As I read Ellen White, the severest shaking will come at the Sunday law. So that means the apostasy will get much worse until then. Elder Ted Wilson I believe will be a fine leader for the church, but he is only one man, and liberalism has a controlling lock on the conferences now for sure.

    Without conversion of the heart, nothing will change for sure. So presenting Christ to the unbelieving and backsliders is the work we need to be doing. Remember, Satan has a thousand diversionary tactics to keep us from soul-winning or supporting evangelism.




    0
    View Comment
  46. Linda said…..

    “The most convincing scientific arguments for Creation are from individuals who have taken the time to listen and know the arguments of for evolution.”

    How silly. There is no such thing as a “scientific argument for creation”.

    Do you have a “scientific argument” for the miracles of Jesus?

    Do you have a “scientific argument” for the incarnation?

    Of course you don’t. And neither is there a “scientific argument” for creation.

    The bible validates itself, period. And prophecy is the best evidence on an objective level to show the sovereignty of God. Faith is based on biblical evidence, not “scientific argument”.

    If we think “scientific argument” will prove the bible, we can only leave ourselves open to skepticism and unbelief and we see that it is impossible to affirm scripture by “scientific argument”.

    The very purpose of the bible Sabbath is to affirm “faith” in the bible as its own infallible validation of God and His creative power. To try to prove creation by “scientific argument” will undermine the bible Sabbath and eventually the whole bible itself.

    Satan is having a “hay day” in the SDA church and the whole world because the truth of God is being challenged more and more by way of human reasoning.

    Keep the faith

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  47. @Bill Sorensen:

    “The most convincing scientific arguments for Creation are from individuals who have taken the time to listen and know the arguments of for evolution.” – Linda

    How silly. There is no such thing as a “scientific argument for creation”.

    Do you have a “scientific argument” for the miracles of Jesus?

    Do you have a “scientific argument” for the incarnation?

    Of course you don’t. And neither is there a “scientific argument” for creation.

    You’re mistaken. There are a great many scientific arguments for creation in the form of pointing to the many features of creation that demand at least God-like creative power and intelligence. Such features are evident in the very structure of the universe itself to the smallest and most “simple” living things on this planet. – Romans 1:20 NIV

    The miracles of Jesus are also empirical evidences, that He gave His own disciples, and the others who were privileged to see them, of His own connection with God and even His own Divinity. John called them “signs”. It was the empirical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Himself that was the crowning Sign of His claim to be “The Christ”, the Son of God. – 2 Peter 1:16

    Today we all have been given just as convincing of empirical evidences to support a rational belief or faith in the Divine origin of the Bible and the credibility of its claims. Such empirical evidences are a key basis of a rational faith and trust in God’s existence and personal care for us as individuals. There is no appeal to blind faith in the Biblical claims that is truly independent of these empirical evidences which appeal to the rational mind.

    The bible validates itself, period.

    There is no such thing as self-validation. Validation that is entirely self-contained is an appeal to circular reasoning. An evidence or data point can only be rationally validated by an appeal to an external reference of some kind.

    And prophecy is the best evidence on an objective level to show the sovereignty of God. Faith is based on biblical evidence, not “scientific argument”.

    An appeal to prophecy is an appeal to a form of scientific evidence – i.e., a scientific argument.

    If we think “scientific argument” will prove the bible, we can only leave ourselves open to skepticism and unbelief and we see that it is impossible to affirm scripture by “scientific argument”.

    While it is impossible for scientific arguments to absolutely prove anything, it is not at all impossible for scientific arguments to provide a significant weight of “affirming” evidence for the credibility of the Scriptures that has the power to appeal to the rational candid mind.

    While there is always the possibility to doubt (even if someone were raised from the dead there would be those who would not believe), this does not remove the fact that a rational faith in the credibility of the Scriptures must be based on a form of scientific reasoning based in empirical evidence.

    The very purpose of the bible Sabbath is to affirm “faith” in the bible as its own infallible validation of God and His creative power. To try to prove creation by “scientific argument” will undermine the bible Sabbath and eventually the whole bible itself.

    Hardly. If you want to call an argument “silly”, this is it.

    It is because of the great weight of empirical evidence and scientific reasoning that many have come to see the light of the Bible – to include me.

    Satan is having a “hay day” in the SDA church and the whole world because the truth of God is being challenged more and more by way of human reasoning.

    Guess what, all your reasoning is “human”. You can’t be more than what you are. You are a subjective creature who is subject to potential error in reasoning. There is no way you can know, with absolute certainty, if your faith in the Bible or anything else is correct. There is the potential for error in your thinking and understanding. You can’t avoid that, and neither can I. You can’t use God’s reasoning ability because you aren’t God and He hasn’t given you or me that capability. All you can use is what God has given you – human reasoning ability.

    It is through this God-given human-level reasoning ability that we can come to the very reasonable conclusion that the Bible is in fact the very Word of God.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  48. Benjamin Burkhardt;

    (Quote)“Satan is no dummy! He attacked Moses as a baby. He attacked Jesus as a baby. And he loves nothing more than to destroy Adventist children before they can ever take hold of and carry the Creator’s message to the whole world.”

    Mr. Burkhardt, I couldn’t agree with you more–and your statement agrees with what I have put on this forum several times. “You cannot expect our young people to courageously carry the torch of truth to the world if we haven’t passed it on to them in the first place!”

    When I was a child growing up our small little Adventist church (with it’s equally small little two room church school behind it), Bible lessons were strictly “Adventist.” My eighth grade Bible book was entitled “God’s Great Plan” which started with the fall of Lucifer and ended with the “Earth Made New.” We studied Daniel, we studied Revelation–and everything in between. We had workbooks that emphasized each lesson. Of course, at that age we didn’t completely understand everything but our academy Bible lessons enforced those beliefs–and so did our college classes. (Unfortunately, we STILL don’t completely understand everything!)But, with God’s help we did produced great leaders who pioneered both radio and TV programs such as HMS Richards, George Vandeman and others whose names I cannot recall at the moment. Has it registered with anyone that three of our top evangelist today were NOT EDUCATED IN OUR SCHOOLS (Doug Batchelor, Shawn Boonstra, and David Asscherick.)? God found them, as really great “sinners” out in the “world” and led them to this wonderful truth!!

    Several times on this site I have told of the young academy girl who was “stunned” to find out (in her senior year academy Bible class) that the story of Daniel in the Lion was a FACT–not a fairy tale like Cinderella. I knew this girl personally and she was also “stunned” when I showed her a copy of my eighth grade Bible book (God’s Great Plan). She looked at me and said, “You studied THAT in the EIGHT GRADE?” Believe me, I was shocked to find out that this girl was reared in an Adventist home and had attended Adventist schools all of her life! Where were her parents? (What were THEY taught in grade school?) Where were her Bible teachers all of that time? What was she being taught about what we as a people claim to believe? Sad to say, she has left the church and no longer believes anything we teach.

    At the time I went to our local ABC and looked at the Bible books then being used. They were so watered down as to be acceptable in just about any protestant church school in the country. That was many years ago and I have no idea what the current Bible books are today. But I do know that there are many loyal, dedicated, Bible believing teachers and pastors among us that are struggling to teach what we as a people claim to believe but they need the proper tools with which to work.

    There is a great deal of concern over the teaching of evolution-and other departures in our universities–and that concern is sorely needed. Yes, we do need to thoroughly prune out these “dead branches” at the top of our educational tree but, even more importantly, we desperately need to be sure the “roots”–our children and youth–are really being fed the true “fertilizer” of the everlasting truths of the Bible!

    Whether we want to believe it or not, we ARE Laodicea! Sin lies at OUR door. (“We have met the enemy and he is us!”) Unfortunately, the “social gospel” has found its way into our churches and many things have crept in that do not lead is to the God we claim to love and serve. When are we going to wake up, quit making excuses, and actually DO something about cleaning up the mess WE have created? The lambs do follow the sheep, you know–and if the lambs are lost what a terrible price we sheep will have to pay! May God give us the wisdom to know what must change and the courage we need to change it.

    I take a great deal of comfort from this note from Ellen White: “The work is soon to close. The members of the church militant who have proved faithful will become the church triumphant. In reviewing our past history, having traveled over every step of advance to our present standing, I can say, praise God! As I see what God has wrought, I am filled with astonishment, and with confidence in Christ as leader. We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord had led us, and His teaching in our past history.” General Conference Daily Bulletin, January 29, 1893

    One question before us is will WE have so lived and so worked that WE may be found on that “ship” that WILL safely sail into the heavenly harbor? I say only those of us who are willing to accept our OWN responsibilities, and prayerfully ask God to forgive us for OUR mistakes and the strength and courage to do what needs to be done–no matter how distasteful it may be. Yes, our leaders do desperately need our encouragement and our prayers in this time of crisis and we should not withhold this from them. But we as individual members and churches, no matter how small, need to reexamine our OWN policies and practices and see if WE are doing what WE can to help prepare OUR children and youth for the work God has for them to do?




    0
    View Comment
  49. “It is truly disheartening to see to what an extent SDA education has succumbed to the wiles of liberalism. I note that one writer said her kids were going to Southern. A close relative who attended Southern a number of years ago remarked that her impression was that the administration wanted good behavior on campus but didn’t really care what one did off campus.”

    Not true. I know people who have been suspended and even expelled for off campus behavior.




    0
    View Comment
  50. Sean said….

    “Guess what, all your reasoning is “human”. You can’t be more than what you are.”

    Yes, Sean, reasoning based on “spiritual revelation”, not natural science.

    Science, as used in a spiritual sense, is not the “science” you reason from.

    God is self affirming, whether you believe it or not. And you can call this “circular reasoning” all you want to, it is a fact.

    God gives evidence, not scientific proof. And natural science is faulty to reveal God’s self affirmation. “Come now, let us reason together…..” is based on spiritual revelation, not natural law science.

    Natural law does not negate nor deny the true God. Neither does it prove or affirm Him. We must go to the bible, where the self affirming God declares who He is and what He does.

    So spiritual truth can not be proved by natural law. But neither does natural law deny it. God created natural law, and is not subject to it. Otherwise, He did not create it.

    Jesus, being God and man, is both creator of natural law, and then subjects Himself to it for our sakes. Just as He is the one who declares moral law and subjects Himself to that as well.

    Neither is natural law and moral law one and the same thing.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  51. @Bill Sorensen:

    “Guess what, all your reasoning is “human”. You can’t be more than what you are.” – Sean Pitman

    Yes, Sean, reasoning based on “spiritual revelation”, not natural science.

    Have you ever knowingly seen or talked to an angel or to God Himself? I haven’t and I dare say most people on Earth haven’t. Upon what basis do those like myself decide what is and what is not true “spiritual revelation”? How do we know that the Bible is a truly credible “spiritual revelation” rather than the Book of Mormon? or the Qur’an?

    Such a determination, I propose, requires an empirical basis and a form of scientific reasoning if it is to be reasonable to the candid intelligent mind.

    God gives evidence, not scientific proof. And natural science is faulty to reveal God’s self affirmation. “Come now, let us reason together…..” is based on spiritual revelation, not natural law science.

    As I’ve already explained, there is no such thing as scientific “proof”. Absolute “proof” does not exist for anything. No hypothesis or theory is fully provable by science or any other method. There is only the weight of evidence, not absolute demonstration in science… or religion. Therefore, when you say that God provides evidence, not scientific proof, you’re not making any sense.

    The provision of evidence requires a form of scientific interpretation to make reasonable, though never absolute, sense of the evidence provided – i.e., human reasoning. The statement, “Come, let us reason together…” is based on actual reasons and real empirical evidence that appeals to the candid intelligent mind. Your argument for “spiritual revelation” whatever that is and means, is claimed by all other religious groups for their preferred source of authority – to include the Latter-day Saints.

    Such arguments are conversation stoppers entirely because they are not an appeal to intelligent well-reasoned arguments regarding generally available empirical evidences.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  52. “How do we know that the Bible is a truly credible “spiritual revelation” rather than the Book of Mormon? or the Qur’an?”

    Prophecy.

    “Absolute “proof” does not exist for anything.”

    What goes up, must come down.

    ” Your argument for “spiritual revelation” whatever that is and means, is claimed by all other religious groups for their preferred source of authority – to include the Latter-day Saints.”

    Their system of prophecy is wrong and faulty. Therefore, their conclusions concerning “their god” is equally wrong. So their view of God can not be validated by a system of infallible prophecy.

    God and the bible validate themselves and need no futher “proof” of their truthfulness or authority. Therefore, we conclude the self validating God who claims He is creator is just that. And so we have adequate evidence and/or “proof” that the bible is true and reveals the one true God.

    In the same way, nature validates itself and its rules on a natural law level. “What goes up, must come down.” This in no way validates God or tell us who He is nor if He is the creator or not. Natural law, is a law unto itself. And for those who reject the bible, natural law is god.

    Thus, they worship the creation instead of the creator. Of course, they have no “first cause” and don’t pretend to. They have theories, but know there is no proof.

    We have no natural law “proof”. We have a spiritual law affirmation by way of the bible which describes and defines God. Who also claims He is the creator who exists outside creation. What reliable evidence do we have that this is true? Prophecy. Mostly, Daniel and Revelation. God validates Himself by way of prophecy.

    Now we can know and trust His self revelation and have “faith” in the bible as the ultimate authority. If the God of the bible is the creator, He must necessarily exist outside of all He has created. He is outside the circle.

    But for our sakes, He comes inside the circle and fellowships with us on our own level. The incarnation is the ultimate revelation of this truth.

    How can Jesus be God and man? No one knows. But we do know He is. Because the bible says so. And we can draw some viable spiritual conclusions based on this reality. Namely, the God who exists outside the circle can come inside the circle and be one of us. He can willingly subject Himself to His own laws of nature and the moral law of love.

    Anytime He wants, He can abandon this self imposed subjection and be the God outside the circle. The creator becomes the created. I don’t know exactly how. I don’t need to know. I do need to know that He can and did.

    The bible tells me so. No one can “reason out” this reality, nor discover it by any “natural law”. It is contrary to natural law human reasoning. It is the “mystery of Godliness.”

    Nature does not deny the possibility of a creator. Nor does it affirm one.

    Intelligent design appeals to a rational possibility, but still doesn’t prove it. Neither would it gives us the necessary scope of who God is in the context of sin and redemption. Neither would intelligent design prove the designer was God.

    For instance, what if their was a “god” who deligated the design of this world to some other being? What if there are many “gods” and one of them designed this world? We could ask a million “What if, questions, and still not have a true answer to our question.

    The only way we can know is, first validate the bible as its own self affirming authority, and then trust its revelations as being true. Only prophecy can do this. Nature can only create more confusion as it can not explain nor reveal a creator God. In fact, because of sin, nature is even more faulty in helping us draw a consistent conclusion. Nature has been warped by sin.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  53. The reason for understanding the evolutionary theory is for the sake of the evolutionist whom we love and seek to help. The most convincing scientific arguments for Creation are from individuals who have taken the time to listen and know the arguments of for evolution. ‘Know your enemy.’ It prepares you to meet the errors intelligently and objectively.

    Linda, I totally agree with you. The best way to counter the religion of evolution is to actually study the basic tenets and evaluate the actual empiric scientific evidence they are based on. What you will find is hypotheses, speculation, and theories built on faithful adherence to the secular humanistic “religion” of materialism.

    If you ask the evolutionists themselves, they will admit this! Do I need to quote?




    0
    View Comment
  54. Sean Pitman wrote:

    As I’ve already explained, there is no such thing as scientific “proof”.

    You mean we can’t prove that 2 – 1 = 1? That gravity pulls things toward the center of the earth? That Albert Einstein studied the theory of relativity and derived an equation? That wolves are carnivores? That antibiotic resistance evolves in bacteria? That the speed of light is faster than the speed of sound? That Dr. Sean Pitman earned an M.D. degree in medicine? That the first living breathing human appeared instantaneously from a pile of dirt?




    0
    View Comment
  55. @Bill Sorensen:

    “How do we know that the Bible is a truly credible “spiritual revelation” rather than the Book of Mormon? or the Qur’an?” – Sean pitman

    Prophecy.

    Your appeal to “prophecy” is an appeal to a form of scientific reasoning, human reasoning, based on real empirical evidence. Prophecy is based on historical sciences to include the use of abductive reasoning. Such an appeal cannot be known to be true with absolute certainty. There remains the potential for error – however small you and I may believe it is. We are still subjective and our interpretation and understanding of history is likewise subject to the potential for error.

    Therefore, your appeal to prophecy to back up the superior credibility of the Bible is an appeal to empirical evidences from outside of the Bible itself – an appeal that is open for testing and at least the potential for falsification.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  56. @Professor Kent:

    As I’ve already explained, there is no such thing as scientific “proof”. – Sean Pitman

    You mean we can’t prove that 2 – 1 = 1? That gravity pulls things toward the center of the earth? That Albert Einstein studied the theory of relativity and derived an equation? That wolves are carnivores? That antibiotic resistance evolves in bacteria? That the speed of light is faster than the speed of sound? That Dr. Sean Pitman earned an M.D. degree in medicine? That the first living breathing human appeared instantaneously from a pile of dirt?

    You confuse observations (and math) with science. Direct observations aren’t “science” in and of themselves. Science is the process of taking limited observations and explaining them with the use of hypotheses that making predictions about the future or the past which are subject to testing and at least the potential for falsification. That’s science.

    Again, such hypotheses and theories, while they can produce high levels of predictive value by passing many tests over time, can never reach absolute perfection. There is always the potential for error, for being wrong, in science.

    As you can see, there is no ‘proof’ or absolute ‘truth’ in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations.

    – Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D., Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions (http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm)

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  57. So, Sean, if I understand you correctly, fulfilled prophecy is “science” (as you allude to in your response to Bill Sorensen) but observing a miracle by Jesus is not (as you allude to in your response to me). Am I right?

    And then, I suppose, something “indisputable” can never be “proven” or shown absolutely to be “truth?”




    0
    View Comment
  58. @Professor Kent:

    So, Sean, if I understand you correctly, fulfilled prophecy is “science” (as you allude to in your response to Bill Sorensen) but observing a miracle by Jesus is not (as you allude to in your response to me). Am I right?

    You’re still confusing observation with interpretation. “Science” is a method of interpreting observations. The interpretation itself cannot be known with absolute perfection.

    Observing an event says nothing about what that event means. The interpretation that a particular event must indicate a Divine or superhuman cause or origin (a miracle) is an interpretation that can be based on a form of scientific reasoning… but this conclusion cannot be known with absolute certainty (as is the case with all scientific interpretations or hypotheses). The very same thing is true of “fulfilled prophecy”.

    Do you really not know that scientists are in general agreement that scientific hypotheses and theories can never reach absolute perfection?

    And then, I suppose, something “indisputable” can never be “proven” or shown absolutely to be “truth?”

    An indisputable observation does not require “proof” since it is, by definition, indisputable for anyone with a rational candid mind observing from the same frame of reference. Interpretations of such observations are, however, always potentially disputable/falsifiable.

    Again, however, observations are not “science” in and of themselves… as you very well know…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  59. I suppose, Sean, in the end, no one will ever know what you are talking about or what you mean. As far as I am concerned, you run helter skelter from one idea to another with no definitive or consistent way of knowing or determining exactly what you mean.

    I think most of us have some working knowledge of the human language. If I say the bible is self validating and appeal to prophecy as “proof” or “evidence” of its credibility, I think most people know what I mean.

    On the other hand, I don’t know anyone who knows what you mean. And as I read various posts of individuals who respond to your ideas, I see they are as confused as I am as to the point you are making.

    So, either many of us lack the ability to comprehend simple logic and communication, or, you lack the ability to communicate your ideas and thoughts.

    It is obvious to me that miracles and the creation event are not natural law events that have any natural law base to validate the credibility of these things. Things happen. We can see this. How they happen is not discernable in many cases and can not be explained. We are aware that we are here. How we got here is not discernable by any natural observation.

    And I speak of the human family, not individuals. But even the identity of an individual can not be explained by any natural law observation.

    As an individual, you are not your mother, neither are you your father. Neither are you simply the product of pro-creation. God gave you a specific identity that goes beyond either one, and that identity was not created by way of natural law. It was God given at some time in the pro-creation process.

    Now how do you explain that by “natural law”? And how do you prove it by observation? And where does it go at death?

    Only the bible answers these questions and gives us a positive and undeniable statement about who we are, where we come from, and where we are going. Without it, we can not know.

    Anyway, in the end, creation is only certified as to its origin by way of the bible. If we agree on this, fine. If not, someone is wrong and in danger of being deceived by appeals to “science, falsely so-called”.

    I assume you believe “God created the heavens and the earth.” And He did this in a literal creation week. I doubt much else can be more helpful than a consistent confession of faith in the bible. If you feel more affirmed by way of science, so be it. I don’t.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  60. @Bill Sorensen: Sean and I have discussed some of the ideas that have been going back and forth here in regard to evidence and faith etc. I haven’t been able to put my finger on it yet, but I believe I’m getting closer to understanding what the big difference is between what Sean is saying and a few others. I believe you are speaking from the perspective of someone who already assumes the Bible to be true–a divine revelation of God’s will to man. Sean on the other hand is speaking from the perspective of those who do not share that view, of which there are many in our church.

    I think all he’s been trying to communicate is that if there is no way to validate the claims of the Bible, then on what basis can we claim that it’s any more authoritative than the Koran or Book of Mormon? Anything that validates the Bible can be considered evidence.

    Do you not agree with what Ellen White said, “God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. His existence, His character, the truthfulness of His Word, are all established by testimony that appeals to our reason; and this testimony is abundant” (MR No. 724).

    Spiritual truths are grounded in physical realities. If we cannot show the Bible to be true in some form, than on what basis can we claim the spiritual claims of the Bible are true? Does that help clear things up? I think the circles you guys have been going in have been somewhat pointless, because I don’t believe you guys fundamentally disagree. Two things are causing the confusion: perspective and semantics.




    0
    View Comment
  61. @ Sean Pitman

    “Science” is a method of interpreting observations. The interpretation itself cannot be known with absolute perfection. Observing an event says nothing about what that event means. The interpretation that a particular event must indicate a Divine or superhuman cause or origin (a miracle) is an interpretation that can be based on a form of scientific reasoning… but this conclusion cannot be known with absolute certainty (as is the case with all scientific interpretations or hypotheses). The very same thing is true of “fulfilled prophecy”.

    So should I accept the hypothesis that Jesus was resurrected based on eyewitness accounts? I’m not aware of physical evidence to support the possibility of his resurrection; are you suggesting that it’s still “scientific” to “interpret” the observations reported by eyewitnesses?

    The bigger question for me is this: would you, today, believe in the divinity of Jesus, or a recent creation in 6 days 6000 years ago, if it was not for the Bible?




    0
    View Comment
  62. WHY would someone want to call themselves a Seventh-day Adventist and not believe in the Bible as God’s divinely inspired word? Since when is membership in the Seventh-day Adventist church required of anyone? Everyone is welcome to attend church, participate in fellowship and support the church financially (or not.) Everyone is not welcome to be baptized into church membership and to use the name in vain.




    0
    View Comment
  63. Shane asks…..

    “If we cannot show the Bible to be true in some form, than on what basis can we claim the spiritual claims of the Bible are true?”

    And I have consistently responded that is by way of prophecy. The bible prophecies. And its validity is firmly rooted in this reality.

    Jesus Himself continually appeals to “Moses and the prophets”. And when our church does viable evangelism, we always use Daniel and Revelation, not only to substanciate our biblical arguments, but to affirm the validity of the bible itself.

    We can certainly observe physical things and ask questions of how they came to be. But we can never by science explain their origin nor the continual energy that maintains them.

    Once we affirm the bible, then yes, we see the hand of God in a thousand ways acting in behalf of His creation and even our own experience testifies to this reality. And ultimately, we do not affirm the bible by our experience, but we affirm our experience by the bible.

    Is there any validity in sharing our experience, including some scientific realities, with an unbeliever? Yes, if our ultimate purpose is to bring them to the bible to find answers to their questions.

    In this context, “The law is a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ.” And we find Christ in His word.

    As you said, Shane, I am not sure there is much disagreement with Sean and those who dialogue with him. But he never really clears up any confusion he seems to create in his posts.

    His theory seems to follow his idea that all have some inherent knowledge of God and His law and by natural science we can convince them and teach them about the true God. This is faulty reasoning. Nature is corrupt and can only lead to a false conclusion. So even nature must be understood and interpreted by scripture.

    A knowledge of the true God has been passed on from generation to generation in society in general. And so it is true, in rare cases, some have discerned enough truth by the knowledge passed down in society, to yield to the influences of the Holy Spirit and will be saved in the end.

    Thus, in heathenism, where some knowledge of the true God has been preserved by tradition, they have discerned the truth. Not because they had some inherent knowledge of love and truth, but because a true godly tradition had to some extent been preserved. People are not born with an inherent knowledge of the truth. Spiritual truth must be taught by an objective source that has preserved it.

    If parents, or society does not teach children true bible morality, they could not and would not ever know what it is or have any ability to discern the true God. Sin has no definition apart from the bible.

    In this area, I think Sean does not discern this reality and thus builds an idea of natural revelation and from there assumes he can teach creation by this means.

    This is how I preceive his arguments and ideas. And if not, then I don’t know what he means.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  64. @Bill Sorensen: Indeed, prophecy is a powerful affirmation of the veracity of the Bible. I think we both agree then that God has given us abundant testimony that his Word is truthful.

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen Sean write that we all have an inherent knowledge of love and truth, but here’s what I do know for certain. God has revealed himself through nature too despite it being mared by sin. Here is what Paul said:

    Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

    Notice that God revealed the invisible things about himself through his creation. The attributes of God can be understood through the things he has made, even his eternal power and Godhead. No one is without any excuse. Many will be saved who do not know the name of Christ.

    Granted there are limitations to what nature reveals, and so we have God’s divine revelation, which for the believer is our ultimate standard of truth. For those who do not yet believe this God has made a available other avenues to arrive at truth such as the laws of logic and observation of the natural world. Keep in mind the Holy Spirit is continually working on our hearts, especially those who are seeking after truth. The Holy Spirit also reveals truth.




    0
    View Comment
  65. @Bill Sorensen:

    If I say the bible is self validating and appeal to prophecy as “proof” or “evidence” of its credibility, I think most people know what I mean.

    When you say things like, “The Bible validates itself, period.” you are being inconsistent in your appeal to history to validate the Bible’s prophetic statements. It is real history that validates the Bible when it comes to prophecy – combined with human reasoning. The Bible does not “validate itself” without any external references. And, the validation process is not based on anything other than actual human reasoning.

    You need to be careful with such language because not all people grew up respecting the Bible as authoritative as you and I did. Such people, especially scientifically minded people, will needlessly dismiss you, out of hand, simply because of your less than ideal choice of words and phrases.

    It is obvious to me that miracles and the creation event are not natural law events that have any natural law base to validate the credibility of these things. Things happen. We can see this. How they happen is not discernable in many cases and can not be explained. We are aware that we are here. How we got here is not discernable by any natural observation.

    You mean that Creation is not explainable by any mindless natural process. However, very high levels of creative activity are an observable part of nature and can be investigated with various forms of scientific study and reasoning. The extrapolation, then, to the need for a very high level of deliberate, even God-like, intelligence and creativity, to explain various features of the universe and of life here on Earth can be very rationally based on a form of scientific reasoning.

    Only the bible answers these questions and gives us a positive and undeniable statement about who we are, where we come from, and where we are going. Without it, we can not know.

    The Bible addresses a great many questions that we otherwise would not know anything about. However, the validity or trustworthiness of the Bible is based on external references in the real world. Without such validation, to include the evidence of prophetic fulfillment in real history, there would be no rational basis to trust the many metaphysical claims of the Bible.

    I assume you believe “God created the heavens and the earth.” And He did this in a literal creation week. I doubt much else can be more helpful than a consistent confession of faith in the bible. If you feel more affirmed by way of science, so be it. I don’t.

    Then you contradict the very basis that the Bible itself uses for affirmation – external references in reality in the form of prophecies fulfilled in actual history as well as the many natural wonders that clearly invoke the very signature of God… (Psalms 19:1 NIV, Romans 1:20 NIV).

    Science is not the enemy of true religion, but a very strong basis for faith…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  66. @Professor Kent:

    So should I accept the hypothesis that Jesus was resurrected based on eyewitness accounts? I’m not aware of physical evidence to support the possibility of his resurrection; are you suggesting that it’s still “scientific” to “interpret” the observations reported by eyewitnesses?

    It depends upon the established credibility of the witnesses, using a form of scientific reasoning to establish this credibility, in your own mind. Does this credibility have the superior weight compared to all of the evidence available to you? If not, then you really have no rational basis to accept the claim as true… and God knows and understands when this is in fact the case for certain individuals…

    The bigger question for me is this: would you, today, believe in the divinity of Jesus, or a recent creation in 6 days 6000 years ago, if it was not for the Bible?

    I would believe in a recent creation of all life on Earth without the Bible – given what I currently think I know without reference to the Bible. I would also believe in a God or God-like power without the Bible based on the features of the created world and universe that demand an origin in a very intelligent and very powerful Mind. It is for this very reason that the majority of physicists believe in or at least strongly suspect the existence of a God of some kind as being ultimately responsible for the existence of the universe and us within it.

    It is for this reason that Paul and David could rationally say,

    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. – Romans 1:20 NIV

    The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands… I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. – Psalms 19:1 NIV & Psalms 139:14 NIV

    The specific detail of 6-literal days of creation, on the other hand, is dependent upon the established credibility of the Bible. This credibility is based on such things as the Bible’s falsifiable statements on origins to include its claim for a recent creation of all life on this planet and a worldwide Noachian Flood – claims which have not been falsified and which are consistent with the significant weigh of evidence that is currently available.

    The same is true of many of the other metaphysical statements of the Bible that are not directly testable or knowable outside of Biblical revelation…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  67. 7-11-10

    Right, Susie! I think some of these folks are arguing just for the sake of arguing–or else they are deliberately trying to confuse the issues for the sake of undermining what this site is trying to do. None of us can know for sure who is doing what and their motives for doing it but God does and He will deal with them in His own good time and His own good way.}

    Satan hates this site for it is revealing things that we, the laity, need to know. And I further think it is beginning to swing things in the direction of dealing with the real problems we have to face. Satan is furious and will do everything in his power to stop it but God will only allow him to go so far.

    Hang in there Shane and Sean! I,for one, believe God called you two young men to this work for a purpose–and I also believe, that “purpose” is beginning to bear fruit.

    Such a task is never easy (and Scripture never said it would be) But if you remain faithful He will continue to work through you to fulfill His proposes. Be assured, there are many out here who are praying for you and the work that needs to be done along this line.

    Remember: “The mills of God oft’turn slowly–but they grind exceeding small!” And the chaff will all be blown away at His coming–which I believe is closer than any of us realize.

    Lydian




    0
    View Comment
  68. Sean said……

    “It depends upon the established credibility of the witnesses, using a form of scientific reasoning to establish this credibility, in your own mind.”

    Sean, you use the word “scientific” in a loose ended generic sense. Because people can think and reason, you call this “scientific”.

    So, in my opinion, you create more confusion than clarity.

    Even in spiritual matters, we call it the “science of salvation”. But we do not mean appeals to natural law science. There is a spiritual law science that is not oppose to natural law, but neither is it validated by natural law as the authority for any conclusions.

    And I personally doubt you can “prove” or even substanciate with reliable evidence from nature the age of the earth. Namely, because no one know how old the earth was when God created it. The biological age could have been millions of years, even if the cronological age was only one day.

    How old was Adam on the first day he was created? or the animals? or the trees and other plant life? We don’t know and we don’t need to know. Apparently, it is not relevant and so we have no biblical information to go by.

    Just so, we don’t know how old the rocks were nor any other element. This is why I find it fruitless to bicker or try to prove the age of the earth by natural science.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  69. @Bill Sorensen:

    Sean, you use the word “scientific” in a loose ended generic sense. Because people can think and reason, you call this “scientific”.

    Scientific thinking and reasoning invokes certain rules of logic and appeals to empirical evidence. Such thinking therefore invokes a form of scientific rational and is therefore a form of “science.”

    I really don’t think you understand what “science” is. It really isn’t all that special or spectacular as far as methods are concerned. It is a very simple method of thinking that involves the interpretation of the evidence that comes into your mind from the outside world through your five senses. It is a “basic bs detector”, as one of my professors used to say. That’s it. Anyone can use a form of scientific reasoning – even children.

    There is a spiritual law science that is not oppose to natural law, but neither is it validated by natural law as the authority for any conclusions.

    This is not true when it comes to validating the credibility of the Bible for those who have not grown up automatically thinking of the Bible as credible or for those who honestly consider some other source of presumed authority, such as the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon, to be superior to the Bible.

    And I personally doubt you can “prove” or even substanciate with reliable evidence from nature the age of the earth. Namely, because no one know how old the earth was when God created it. The biological age could have been millions of years, even if the cronological age was only one day.

    First off, I’m really only interested in the age of life on Earth and the structure of the Earth needed to support complex life. Secondly, you’re appealing to the concept of “Last Thursdayism” again. God could make things look old or young or whatever. That would remove the basis for the credibility of the Bible as being superior to the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon. After all, someone subscribing to one of these other faiths could simply say, “God just make it look different from the true reality.” That’s not a rational argument…

    How old was Adam on the first day he was created? or the animals? or the trees and other plant life? We don’t know and we don’t need to know. Apparently, it is not relevant and so we have no biblical information to go by.

    On the First Day, Adam and all other animal life on Earth was obviously one day old – but had the appearance, from our own perspective, of an adult or mature age… according to the Genesis account.

    Just so, we don’t know how old the rocks were nor any other element. This is why I find it fruitless to bicker or try to prove the age of the earth by natural science.

    You’re mistaken. If life on this Earth can be conclusively shown to have the appearance of having been here for hundreds of millions of years of time, that would be very problematic for the validity of the Genesis account of origins… problematic for the candid rational mind.

    It is pointless to argue that God could have created life with the appearance of having been here for hundreds of millions of years when in reality it has only been here for less than 10,000 years. Such an argument would make God look like a capricious liar who expects people to blindly believe despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary – like expecting people to believe that the Earth is flat when all the available evidence overwhelmingly shows it to be spherical…

    The God I know doesn’t work like that… And, Mrs. White makes a very interesting statement to the contrary:

    During the Flood humans, animals, and trees were “buried, and thus preserved as an evidence to later generations that the antediluvians perished by a flood. God designed that the discovery of these things should establish faith in inspired history; but . . . the things which God gave them [i.e., to us humans] as a benefit, they turn into a curse by making a wrong use of them.”

    – Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 112.

    In other words, according to Mrs. White, God encourages the search for and study of fossils, and actually intends that their discovery should help to ground personal belief in the historical reliability of the Genesis account of the creation and the Flood. This forcefully illustrates that Mrs. White believed that the accounts of Genesis 1-11 are divinely intended to be interpreted historically; not only theologically. Thus, according to Ellen White, the only true biblical understanding of the creation and the flood accounts is to interpret them as referring to empirical, historical events which are of interest to the natural sciences.

    http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/genesis.html#_edn35

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  70. Sean said…..

    “You’re mistaken. If life on this Earth can be conclusively shown to have the appearance of having been here for hundreds of millions of years of time, that would be very problematic for the validity of the Genesis account of origins… problematic for the candid rational mind.” – Sean Pitman

    Exactly, Sean. Your “candid rational mind” will never see or know how miracles happen. Nor how “He commanded, and it stood fast.” Nor how “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made and all the hosts of them by the breath of His mouth.”

    And all the trees and flowers and animal life were not “one day old” in their development. Adam was a full grown man and so were the animals. And the trees were not “one day old” either. They were created full grown.

    Adam’s intelligence and comprehension were not on the same level as a new born baby. Many scientists who want to support creation by way of science are backing themselves into a corner and will finally see they can not substanciate the age of the earth by determining the age of rocks or anything else from the day of creation.

    Through bible history we can determine the age of the earth as being aproximately 6,ooo years old. Not 7 thousand, or ten thousand. And EGW affirms in the Great Controversy the age of the earth is about 6,000 years.

    And extra thousand years is not viable. And ten thousand years is way off the mark. If people will not accept the bible’s own evidence of self validation, all the science in the world will not persuade them.

    Even if the truly find Noah’s ark, those who choose not to believe will remain in unbelief. So Jesus said, “If they will not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe even if one rose from the dead.”

    And Paul affirms, “Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.”

    Is there evidence of a flood? Yes. But all unbelievers soon find another answer by way of “science” to dis-credit the bible.

    Take note, Sean, how earnestly the devil works to dis-credit prophecy. It is the one infallible testimony to validate the bible and its claims.

    Dr. Ford, one of Satan’s main agents, worked earnestly to dis-credit Daniel and over throw bible Adventism and attack EGW and her ministry. And not a few have followed in his foot steps who hold a good deal of influence and authority in the SDA church today.

    Spectrum and A-today never should have had a booth at the GC in Atlanta. They are not SDA forums, nor are they sponsored by the SDA church.

    Do we let a Roman Catholic ministry have a booth at our GC sessions? To do so is to admit these ministries have a valid influence for truth and should be seriously considered for their teaching and spirituality.

    If through science, you can influence someone to consider the bible and its validity, then “the law is a schoolmaster to lead us to (the bible).”

    By a careful study of scripture, a scientist may be persuaded and even agree that natural science does not attack scripture. But you will never use natural science alone to prove the age of the earth, nor validate the creation week. On the other hand, you can use the bible alone to validate its stated truths.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  71. Hans Zwick says:
    September 8, 2010… they try forever to connect some culture to the Neanderthals when human history does not trace further back in time then about 2200 BC, with one post Flood Ice Age.

    That is what I studied out with a e-mail friend, the history of the Bible lands. We discovered written evidence that the Queen of Sheba was Queen Hatshepsut, that Shishak was Thutmose III, that the Amarna period belongs in the days of Ahab, that Ben Hadad was known under several names including Ashurnasirpal of which I was able to find some proof in old archaeology magazines from 1905 I believe it was. That makes Ramses II pharaoh Necho of the Book of Jeremiah and the Greek authors whose chief of staff was Necharomes, (garve found in 2002) – the name is made up of Necho – Ramses. As the king’s diplomat he had the right to name himself after his master and how he was non in Egypt and by the Greeks.

    Thank you for that thought provoking post – what sources did you use?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  72. @Bill Sorensen:

    “You’re mistaken. If life on this Earth can be conclusively shown to have the appearance of having been here for hundreds of millions of years of time, that would be very problematic for the validity of the Genesis account of origins… problematic for the candid rational mind.” – Sean Pitman

    Exactly, Sean. Your “candid rational mind” will never see or know how miracles happen. Nor how “He commanded, and it stood fast.” Nor how “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made and all the hosts of them by the breath of His mouth.”

    You don’t have to know how something happened to know that however it happened, it required the input of a deliberate and very intelligent mind. This is where scientific reasoning and rational thinking comes into play.

    Your argument that the features of the natural world in which we live, and various historical sciences, are irrelevant to the validity of the claims of the Bible is a direct appeal to blind faith – – that one should simply believe the Bible even in situations where all available empirical evidence is clearly contradictory. The very same argument is used by my LDS friends – the very same argument. They argue that they know the truth because the Holy Spirit tells them the truth. This is essentially the same thing you’re saying – or so it seems to me…

    And all the trees and flowers and animal life were not “one day old” in their development. Adam was a full grown man and so were the animals. And the trees were not “one day old” either. They were created full grown.

    We’re not talking about a situation were God, out of necessity, produced adult forms of living things. We’re talking about a situation where God would make things look like they have lived and died on this planet over the course of hundreds of millions of years of time, and then expect us to believe the Bible despite the overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary. I’m sorry, but that’s not a reasonable argument for belief or faith in the credibility of the Bible.

    If people will not accept the bible’s own evidence of self validation, all the science in the world will not persuade them.

    Again, there is no such thing as “self validation”. That concept is not a rational concept. It is an appeal to circular reasoning. For example, I could say, “What I just told you is true because I am trustworthy – just ask me. Don’t ask anyone else though because no one else is a trustworthy as I am.”

    Even if the truly find Noah’s ark, those who choose not to believe will remain in unbelief. So Jesus said, “If they will not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe even if one rose from the dead.”

    And Paul affirms, “Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.”

    This is a problem with desire, not with the evidentiary basis of faith for those who really do want to know and follow the truth. Paul, in particular, argues for the evidentiary basis of faith in Romans 1:20 NIV.

    Is there evidence of a flood? Yes. But all unbelievers soon find another answer by way of “science” to dis-credit the bible.

    One doesn’t need “science” to avoid acceptance of what one really knows to be true. The Jewish leaders in Jesus’ day knew that he was the Messiah. They just didn’t want to accept what they knew to be true. The evidence was overwhelming. They had no excuse for their rejection of Jesus and they will admit this in the end of time during the final Judgment.

    Take note, Sean, how earnestly the devil works to dis-credit prophecy. It is the one infallible testimony to validate the bible and its claims.

    An understanding of history, upon which the validity of prophecy is based, is not infallible my friend. It is based, as are all of your other beliefs about the reality of the world in which you live, on your own subjective interpretation of what your five senses are telling you. In other words, your beliefs, even in regard to biblical prophecy, are subject to potential error and falsification – as are mine. You simply aren’t omniscient. You cannot know for sure, with absolute certainty, if you are or are not correct. You can be very confident in your conclusions, but not perfectly so this side of Heaven…

    Dr. Ford [edit] worked earnestly to dis-credit Daniel and over throw bible Adventism and attack EGW and her ministry. And not a few have followed in his foot steps who hold a good deal of influence and authority in the SDA church today.

    That’s true. But, this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand – i.e., a discussion regarding the evidentiary basis of a rational faith in the credibility of the Bible as the Word of God.

    Spectrum and A-today never should have had a booth at the GC in Atlanta. They are not SDA forums, nor are they sponsored by the SDA church.

    Do we let a Roman Catholic ministry have a booth at our GC sessions? To do so is to admit these ministries have a valid influence for truth and should be seriously considered for their teaching and spirituality.

    I agree, but this is also irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

    If through science, you can influence someone to consider the bible and its validity, then “the law is a schoolmaster to lead us to (the bible).”

    This is how I was led to a confident trust in the Bible as the Word of God. And, this is how I have led many of my friends to trust the Bible as well… through an appeal to the weight of currently available empirical evidence and a form of scientific reasoning.

    By a careful study of scripture, a scientist may be persuaded and even agree that natural science does not attack scripture. But you will never use natural science alone to prove the age of the earth, nor validate the creation week. On the other hand, you can use the bible alone to validate its stated truths.

    You’re mistaken here. It is upon a form of scientific reasoning alone that the Bible’s credibility regarding its metaphysical and other non-testable claims can be rationally considered to be trustworthy. It is through scientific investigation into the testable claims of the Bible that the Bible is found to be consistently trustworthy and reliable. Therefore, the trustworthiness of those biblical claims that cannot be directly investigated gain credibility as well. Without this basis in empirical evidence, however, there would be no rational reason to trust the Bible as having superior credibility in anything vs. any other good book or moral fable.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  73. I was a graduate student in biology at LLU in the 70’s. All of the faculty and students there at that time were 7- day creationists. I am sure of this. I didn’t know all the biology faculty at LSU at that time, but I never heard any other kind of beliefs from any I knew there either.




    0
    View Comment
  74. Well, in the end, Sean, the way you use the phrase “scientific evidence” is pretty loose ended. It is certainly not how most people would interpret the phrase. I have to admit, I am still not sure I understand what you mean. But I am sure you do.

    For me, your “scientific evidence” lends itself to affirming “scientific proof”. And if so, this is where you will get a lot of flack from such an affirmation. And maybe more than a few see your argument as I do.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  75. While this discussion continues – the scientific community is going through what it calls a second Copernican revolution over discoveries of earth-like (rock) planets made this year.

    TED (Technology Entertainment and Design) conference video – the speaker is a NASA scientist working with the Kepler space-based telescope.

    http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/video-during-ted-talk-kepler-scientist-reveals-discovery-140-exoplanets-are-earth

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  76. @Bill Sorensen: Bill, when so-called learned individuals reject the literal six-day creation week, they reject God as Creator. Genesis 1:1, Exodus 20:11, and Revelation 14:7 clearly give the name, title, and dominion/territory of our Creator. ANYONE who accepts evolution and denies God as Creator of heaven and earth will eventually reject the seventh-day sabbath of the fourth commandment. Sadly, millions of professed Seventh-day Adventists have compromised on unadulterated truth and have become entangled in ecumenical beliefs and practices that are contrary to the Word of God. Many unknowingly are preparing themselves to become Sunday worshippers when the National Sunday Law is past. This event is in the very near future. I have reread Apostasy at the Jordan in Patriarchs and Prophets and the first three chapters in The Great Controversy. I suggest that all reading this will do the same. Ancient Israel rejected God’s mercy, despised His love, and trampled upon His law. Seventh-day Adventists have been called to give the last warning message of mercy to a dying world. Unfortunately, we are repeating the same apostasy as ancient Israel, and the same visitation of God’s judgments are inevitable. I pray that we will awaken out of our lukewarm condition and make final our decisions to follow Jesus Christ all the way.




    0
    View Comment
  77. @Bill Sorensen:
    ALL who reject God as Creator of the literal six-day creation week will eventually reject the seventh-day sabbath as the day to worship our Creator. It is Satan’s clever plan to get humans to accept his spurious day of worship, thereby deceiving millions.




    0
    View Comment
  78. I was a graduate student in biology at LLU in the 70′s.All of the faculty and students there at that time were 7- day creationists.I am sure of this. I didn’t know all the biology faculty at LSU at that time, but I never heard any other kind of beliefs from any I knew there either.  

    Lance, I graduated from LLUMS in 1977. I never, in my whole training as a physician, remember anything being said about how evolution formed our cells, tissues, organs, etc. I spent 5 years in post-graduate medical education, and nobody mentioned it there either.

    I took and passed numerous national board exams, without seeing a single question on evolution. I even passed the Internal Medicine Boards, and found no questions on how evolution affected health, disease, or anything else.




    0
    View Comment
  79. @Bill Sorensen:
    ALL who reject God as Creator of the literal six-day creation week will eventually reject the seventh-day sabbath as the day to worship our Creator. It is Satan’s clever plan to get humans to accept his spurious day of worship, thereby deceiving millions.  

    JG, I agree with you 100% However, if you’ve ever listened to secular liberal SDA’s, they have a rationale for everything, including why one can believe in Darwinian evolution and still believe that God “made” the Sabbath Day.

    One of their rationales is that all that Genesis stuff is just “allegory.” Just a “fairy tale” story to illustrate a “principle” and not actually reality. “Adam” is just mankind in general. “Days” are just long periods of time. “Satan” is just your evil imagination.

    Evidently, Jesus and all the rest of the biblical characters were fooled and confused because they seem to believe Genesis was real!




    0
    View Comment
  80. Hans Zwick,

    I’d like to see some evidence of some of the things you were stating to identify people from the Bible in history. An authority on such matters is David Rohl a proponent of New Chronology who has published many books and appeared on TV. For example, most people identify the Biblical Shishak as Shoshenk I. However, he believes that Shishak was Egypt’s greatest ruler, Rameses II. Labaya from the Armana Letters is King Saul. He has lots more of these. I recommend reading one of his books.




    0
    View Comment
  81. Paul Harvey in a speech at Campion Academy in 1962 said, “America has stopped calling sin sin and dirt dirt” He ended the speech with this, “perhaps it was for such a time as this that you were sent into the kingdom”.




    0
    View Comment
  82. Pingback: Private Recorded Conversation Prompts La Sierra Resignations |

Comments are closed.