Inge Anderson wrote: “I wonder if some of the many …

Comment on PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood? by Inge Anderson.

Inge Anderson wrote: “I wonder if some of the many PUC students who have posted in support of Dr Ness can honestly testify that Dr Ness teaches that the Genesis account of the origin of life on this planet in six literal days is an accurate history of our origin, even if science cannot “prove” it.”You apparently overlooked my earlier post in which I asked “So where is the video of Dr. Ness standing in front of the entire college at Colloquy last year, talking about what happened on each of the six days of creation, which he defended as being literally true?” I can honestly testify that Dr. Ness stood in front of the entire college community–not just a classroom with a few dozen students–and preached a sermon about the six literal days of creation. In what way does this fall short from your expectations of a SDA biology professor? Why is it that Educate Truthers tend to focus on negative aspects of SDA education and ignore the positive?  

Actually, that’s not what I was looking for. I was looking for a statement “that the Genesis account of the origin of life on this planet in six literal days is an accurate history of our origin.” I was not looking for a faith statement, but a science/fact statement.

I can still remember when I was a college student, though it was many years ago. I’m grateful to Dr Asa Thoreson and Dr Leonard Hare who were my teachers in biology at Andrews University. They taught me the difference between fact and its interpretation. They helped me realize that science is a human endeavor and therefore subject to errors.

If I had had teachers that taught that the hard facts were in favor of the origin of life by evolution over billions of years and the same teachers avowed a strong faith in the accuracy of the biblical record nonetheless, I would have had a crisis of faith on that account. It might be very well for them, but I cannot live with such a contradiction of faith versus facts.

It comes down to the nature and the character of God:

Is our Creator God a god of tooth and claw, of survival of the fittest, of death by violence in order to “evolve” to a higher state of being. (Sounds more like the devil to me.)

Is our Creator God one who asks us to “believe” in spite of the undeniable facts? (That’s what I perceive when a prof teaches billions of years of life as “facts” at the same time that he can preach a sermon on the six days of creation. Of course I may be wrong in my perceptions, but both the video and the student comments seem to support that scenario.)

I say No to both of those questions.

God gives us enough evidence to believe — not “proof,” because He will not compel even our reasoning powers. But He gives enough evidence. Yet He will always leave hooks on which to hang our doubts. That’s when we need to exercise faith: In the light of all He has clearly revealed, we trust Him with what He has not revealed. That applies to the question of origins as well as other natural and spiritual truths.

Inge Anderson Also Commented

PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood?
@ke6gwf / Ben, who wrote:

If the bible very clearly said that the earth was “round as unto a beachball”, and science sent a camera into space and it turned out that the earth looked like a waffle, that would present a problem. It would mean either we were misinterpreting the evidence, or misinterpreting the bible, or the bible was wrong.We don’t have any conflicts like that though, thank God!
We have piles and piles of data and research that can be interpreted many ways depending on how you hold your tongue, and we have the Bible that can be interpreted many ways depending on what you believe before you read it.
If we submit ourselves as little children to the Holy Spirit, He will inspire us how to understand both the Bible and Nature, otherwise we are just paddling ourselves closer to the edge of the flat earth!Ben~  

I just have to say that I enjoy your posts — not only the content, but the way you present it. (Are you by any chance a poet? Those images of bent tongues and boats paddling close to the edge of the flat earth … ;))

Carry on. 🙂

PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood?
@Mary Anne who wrote:

How long was our church preaching temperance before we had any solid evidence for example that smoking was detrimental to our health.

You need to rethink your extreme position.

Thanks for the excellent example, Mary Anne.

On the other hand, I do believe our science professors should make an effort to be knowledgeable on the empirical evidence in favor of the historicity of the Genesis account, rather than just relying on “peer-reviewed” papers which are mostly evidence in favor of origin by gradual evolution. But it doesn’t help the creationist side to take extreme positions that repel thinking people.

PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood?
@Sean Pitman:

@Inge Anderson:

Sean Pitman wrote:
If the weight of evidence as one is able to understand it is in fact contrary to the worldwide nature of the Noachian Flood, it would be unreasonable for that person to trust the Biblical account of origins as credible. It would also be impossible for that person to actively support the SDA position on origins, to include the worldwide nature of the Noachian Flood as being responsible for the fossil record.

I stand by what I did actually say regarding the weight of evidence. It would be unreasonable for God to expect us to believe against what we honestly understand as the vast or what seems to be the “overwhelming” weight of evidence. God never asks this of us. He always provides a sufficient weight of evidence to support a rational belief in the validity and truth of His Word before He asks us to believe and have “faith”…

It seems to me that you are emphasizing a different portion of your statement than that to which I saw myself responding. So let’s take it apart:

You wrote:

If the weight of evidence as one is able to understand it is in fact contrary to the worldwide nature of the Noachian Flood

As written, it would seem to suggest that a student in a traditional science class must necessarily believe in origin by evolution, since he could not reasonably be expected to understand that the weight of evidence is not against a short age and creation by divine fiat.

You appear to be supporting the idea that we need to believe only if we understand “the weight of evidence” on each particular point, because God wouldn’t expect us to believe, unless we can understand.

Am I reading you correctly?

I, on the other hand, suggest that God gives us sufficient evidence of the trustworthiness of His character, and then He not infrequently asks us to act on naked faith alone — without any evidence whatsoever. That is what I believe He asked of Noah. You, by contrast, seem to argue that Noah had “empirical evidence.” I’d be interested to understand what you deem that to have been.

Likewise, I believe God asked Abraham to leave his family, his city and civilization itself in order to move to an unknown destination, keeping in mind that his ultimate destination was the kingdom of heaven itself. Yet you argue that he had “empirical evidence.” What would that have been?

You see, the way I read Hebrews, it doesn’t tell me that these men had “empirical evidence.”

Please don’t misinterpret me to be saying that it doesn’t matter what we teach our students. It does matter. But it doesn’t hurt to acknowledge that the apparent empirical support for origin by evolution is about as strong as the apparent empirical support for origin by divine fiat.

Each philosophy of origins (and it is philosophy, because there’s no way to verify either belief) requires a certain amount of faith. (I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.)

On your website and here you argue for certain empirical evidence that points to the historicity of the biblical record, and that is good. We need to do the same in our schools. They need to know the scientific arguments in favor of the authenticity of the biblical record, and they also need to know the challenges to those arguments, the arguments in favor of evolution, and the challenges to those arguments.

Essentially, we need to expect more of the students in Christian universities than is expected of them in secular universities. They need to be equipped to meet new evolutionary arguments as they come along. Key to this is the understanding that the differences are normally in the interpretation of the evidence, not in the evidence itself.

Recent Comments by Inge Anderson

Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Sean, while I don’t currently have time to address all the issues in your post, one thing concerns me greatly – that, as head elder, you would recommend that your church members should use their tithe as a tool of political action.

If your recommendation were followed by others, hundreds of thousands of people would be justified in not turning in tithe at all because they believe that the General Conference is out of line, being manipulated and controlled by a very small number of people. (But that’s another story.) And, really, anyone who disagrees with something done in the conference or the GC would be justified to withhold or re-direct tithe, following your reasoning. I do hope that you will decide that you “just cannot go there.”

When Jesus commended the widow who gave her last two coins, the “church” was as corrupt as it ever was or will be. Yet God recognized the gift as given to *Him,* and He blessed her and millions of people since then.

When we return our tithe to the Lord, I believe we must do it in faith, letting go of any control of how it is used. If administrators misuse it, they must answer to God. When we don’t return to God what already belongs to Him, we must answer for it. The way I see it, since the tithe already belongs to God, it is not ours to manage.

Offerings are another matter. If you feel your local conference is out of line, you are free not to send them the usual percentage for the conference budget and send it elsewhere.

God, Sky & Land – by Brian Bull and Fritz Guy
The direct URL for Cindy Tutsch’s article is

God, Sky & Land – by Brian Bull and Fritz Guy

Lydian: There is something else I would like for someone to tell me—

Where in the world is the GRI in all of this? I have searched the internet and find virtually nothing there that would attract anybody to what it has to say–if it has anything to say.

Good question.

There are a number of Adventist sites that deal with science supportive of the biblical world view, Sean Pitman’s among them.

It seems that the only Adventist university that has a site supportive of a biblical world view in science appears to be Southwestern Adventist University.

Their Earth History Research Center features research papers as well as material quite understandable to lay persons. I recommend clicking through their links to see what is there.

Perhaps this is where we should look (and perhaps send our dollars) instead of the GRI. You will see that Ariel Roth, former director of the GRI (when it was more supportive of a biblical world view) is part of the Earth History Research Center.

May God abundantly bless the efforts of all who are connected with this project.

PS Currently is featuring an article by Cindy Tutsch entitled, “Does It Matter How Long God Took to Create?”

The Heroic Crusade Redux

Professor Kent: This is but only the faith of Sean Pitman’s straw man. This is not the faith of the Adventist who accepts God’s word at face value.

Sean is correct in his characterization, because that seems to be the kind of “faith” that has been championed here by a number of individuals who have faulted Sean for presenting evidence in favor of creation having happened just thousands of years ago.

If you accept the interpretation of evolutionists who believe (by faith) that life began on this planet some billions of years ago and then “by faith” believe that God created the world a few thousand years ago, you are essentially asserting “faith” in what you intellectually recognize as being a falsehood. That’s a good sight worse than a child’s “faith” in Santa Claus, because the child doesn’t “know from evidence” that Santa Claus doesn’t exist.

I do accept God’s Word at face value, and because I accept it at face value, I know that all the evidence, rightly interpreted, will support the historical account in God’s Word. It is an intellectually consistent stance, whereas asserting belief in both evolutionism and biblical creation contravenes all rules of logic and intellectual integrity.

If you really do believe that the Genesis account is a true account of history, why do you characterize Sean’s presentation of scientific evidence to support the Genesis account as being anti-faith??

La Sierra University Granted Window to Show its Faithfulness to Church’s Creation Belief
This is encouraging, IMO.

However, the survey of students probably presents a more favorable picture than is realistic, since a significant percentage of the students may not even know what the Adventist position on creation is — considering the kinds of homes they are coming from. But even if they all knew, a 50% rate of believing that SDA views were presented is pretty dismal. That’s a failing grade, after all ..