Comment on PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood? by BobRyan.
Benjamin Burkhardt says:
November 8, 2010 I was at PUC from 2004 to 2006. I have taken a science course co-taught by Dr. Bryan Ness and one of his collegues. It was about Scientific revolutions. I do not remember every detail about that class but I do remember that we always started class with a worship thought that was biblical and relevant. We started with “in the beginning GOD created the heaven’s and the earth†(emphasis was placed by our instructors) (Genesis 1:1).
This is an area of common ground between both theistic evolutionists (especially in the SDA church) and Bible creationists. They can emphasize this point all day long without having any qualms about it.
Also – I don’t know that anyone here has suggest that PUC’s entire science and religion departments has gone off into evolutionism the way LSU has done. AND it is very likely that you could go to almost anyone of our Universities and find at least one theistic evolutionist teaching. But I doubt that you would not find department level buy-in the way you see it at LSU.
I will say this…One book given to us and required by the professors was “Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong†by Jonathan Wells. What I did read from the book was very good and spoke directly against a number of the falsehoods of Evolution.
Wouldn’t it have been great if Ness had presented a summary of that book to the Theology dept in a true here is what evolutionism claims from science but here are some answers that we find in nature that point to problems in the evolutionist model?
In REGARDS TO NOAH’S FLOOD some minor issues came up for me. I did not quite understand what Dr. Ness was trying to say about it, but I didn’t like a point that was made. So, I asked him about the matter after class and he explained to me that perhaps the flood could have been a more local event, and the authors of the Bible were reporting it merely as they had perceived it. Personally, I did not like that answer so I went back to study my Bible again.
It does a great deal of damage to the Bible to have God promise Noah that He will “never send a local flood again upon mankind”.
It does a great deal of damage to the Bible to water down the “highest mountain” and “all living things on land with the breath of life in them” to “just stuff near you flooded”. If we really had that degree of freedom in “bending the bible” then the virgin birth and resurrection accounts are out the window as well. Nothing in the Bible is “trustworthy” at that point.
Now here is the part that I find interesting. Have you ever found anyone who believes in a literal 7 day creation week 10,000 years ago — but not a global flood? I haven’t. The first thing to go is the literal creation week 10,000 years ago — the second thing is the flood. I never have seen it the other way around.
I understand that Dr. Ness is still a believer in God’s word. And I know he desires to understand a right relationship between the Bible and the materials he’s studied in the scientific community.
That is claim that all Christian Theistic Evolutionists make about themselves as well.
NOW, Should we immediately CRUCIFY everyone who is struggling to settle their faith on the particulars of our belief? No, I don’t think so. It wouldn’t be Christ’s way, because “he is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance†(2 Peter 3:9). Is an erroneous or unsettled belief about a matter of history a sin? No, it certainly isn’t. A wrong idea is not necessarily a sin, just bad information.
We cannot judge the salvation status of anyone. But in general terms we find in 3SG 90-91 that theistic evolutionism is called the “worst kind of infidelity” because as the text says “it is infidelity in disguise”.
So if the question is whether it is right to hold to such a view as a Christian – clearly that appears to be a mistake.
If the question is – “do you want to hire science teachers in our colleges and Universities that are not convinced that creationism is true” – I think that then GC president Paulsen was clear on that point in his talk at Andrews and the current GC President Ted Wilson has been exceedingly clear on this point.
If some of our science teachers are struggling with certain doubts, because of the materiels which they have been forced to grapple with in their feild, I PRAY that (1) they will make every attempt to refrain from passing those doubts into their student’s minds. Let us all talk and share our FAITH, not doubts. Don’t lie, but don’t share doubts. They are not from God. And perhaps one day, someone may recover from their doubts, but, perhaps the students who heard such things never will…their soul will end up lost. Secondly (2), I think about professors need to find faith. Get help. Find evidence. Look for those reasons upon which we should rest our faith.
Good points all!
SUGGESTION: If our Science teachers are willing, why do they not have a gathering among our men of Faith, and our Science teachers who do hold a strong faith in God’s word? Why don’t we have an SDA science teacher convention were they can all gather to grapple with and to settle these issues? We have men among us who hold to a very Biblical view, and also are very familiar with the Sciences. Why don’t all the willing ones meet to hear their presentations?
That would be the “Faith and Science” conferences held in 2002 and 2004 after a survey in 1991 indicated that a significant number of our science teachers at the college and university level were choosing faith in evolutionism. The result at the end of those meetings is that they did not come to agreement other than the agreement that our denominational position would continue to be that the Bible is true and implication that you would not lose your job for “believing in evolutionism anyway”.
BNET reports SDA 1994 survey result
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20041127/ai_n11491046/
Yet at Adventist colleges, according to a 1994 survey of 121 science teachers, only 43 percent agreed with the church’s view that “God created live organisms during six days less than 10,000 years ago.”British Centre for Science and Education
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/SeventhDayAdventist
Yet at Adventist colleges, according to a 1994 survey of 121 science teachers, only 43 percent agreed with the church’s view that “God created live organisms during six days less than 10,000 years ago.”The 2003 Faith and Science Conference was the second in a series of three annual Seventh-day Adventist conferences called to address questions surrounding our understanding of Creation. The first conference, which brought together representatives from around the world, was held in Ogden, Utah in 2002. The second series of conference(s) were organized by many of the world divisions in their own territory and have occurred or will occur in 2003 and early 2004. The final conference will again bring together representatives from the world church and will be held in Denver, Colorado, in August 2004.
WALTER VEITH is among us. He used to be a DIE HARD evolutionary professor. He used to destroy his Christian students. He’s very familiar with all the positions of the scientific community. Yet, today, He is a DIE HARD CREATIONIST. His presentations are very clear and he shows the holes in evolutionary thought. He also sustains our positions from a very scientific perspective. We have others too. What about Dr. Chadwick, at Southwestern AU in Texas? He holds our views. His Geological research and fossil discoveries are Great evidence for the flood and the Biblical records.
All true. Spencer from Southern, Chadwick from Southwestern, Veith, Ariel Roth and a number of others would make a great allstar team. I don’t know that these men were all brought in for the “faith and sciences” conferences but somebody needs to get the ball rolling! We need to be done with the “milk toast” option that does not take the inside threat of evolutionism seriously.
in Christ,
Bob
Table of Contents
BobRyan Also Commented
PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood?
Adventist kid: An interesting and pertinent art project at PUC:
https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=130821580328265
I consider it very possible that the art department at PUC actually believes in a real 7 day creation week less than 10,000 years ago.
in Christ,
Bob
PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood?
Paul Giem: The problem I have with La Sierra (my information is mostly secondhand at PUC, and I didn’t even get to see the video, and so can’t comment there), is that the above is not the approach of the (controlling) majority of the biology faculty, from all the evidence I have seen. Rather, they have repeatedly sought to keep evidence that might support YLC out of the discussion, and at least in some cases their privately expressed beliefs matched their public (or at least classroom) pronouncements. That is, they teach long ages and unguided evolution, while attempting to disallow any other point of view.
Which again points to the real heart of the problem. This is not a case of teachers that are either Creationist or simply neutral, presenting facts both positive and negative regarding evolutionism.
This is a case of evangelists for evolutionism discounting any thought in favor of God’s view on this topic and favoring every speculative unproven conclusion in favor of Darwin’s self-admitted anti-Bible position (“as if” they have been doing a good thing).
in Christ,
Bob
PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood?
As you watch and listen to that video clip – adding up all the reasons given not to believe the the 7 day creation week and literal world wide flood — you get such “nonscience” ideas as –
1. Did Noah know what the world was – Did Moses know what the World was to report a world wide flood.
1.B “So after our discussion here apparently it would not be too big a deal to make Noah’s flood local not world wide. In fact the only real objection I can think of for that is Ellen White. If you want to claim that Ellen White is accurate in evertyhing she says well then you have to deal with that point… the Bible can be interpreted in different ways.”
2. Bending the Bible defintion for World Wide Flood is the easiest problem to solve.
3. Some people in the SDA church like to insist on a literal 7 day creation week because they think “well that is just the way it was” –
4. Those who wrote out belief #6 were careful NOT to say it is a “literal 7 day week” because they did not want to box any SDAs into thinking that this is the only option and they knew many SDAs simply do not accept it.
5. If you want to change the World Wide Flood idea – another problem you have is Ellen White – so you need to decide whether she is really an authority.
Hint: NONE of that is “science” or “biology” or “news from the science department”. NORE is it a conversation in the form “let is look and see if the science claims being made for evolutionism really hold up”.
Thus the PUC “devil’s advocate” claim appears to be in the form of a supposed devil’s advocate trying to find ways to bend the bible and discount Ellen White, as well as a devil’s advocate making sweeping assertions about science claiming that it is beyond question — because in this talk Ness does not give 40 seconds of time to the idea that maybe his science claims on behalf of evolutionism “could be reinterpreted”. Rather it is only the Bible and our use of Ellen White that is suggested for “reinterpretation”. How “scientific” is that?
The objective unbiased reader using even a small degree of critical thinking when watching that video is going to get a very clear picture of what is going on. No wonder PUC wants to hide it.
in Christ,
Bob
Recent Comments by BobRyan
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
Gentlemen,What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind
