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

---

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

BobRyan said

While we are on the subject – here is something Shane posted recently – regarding the video.The class makes sweeping science claims for evolutionism then seeks for a solution by looking into the plasticity of the Bible and the messages God gave to Ellen White.Question: What is the point of continuallying ignoring these key details when someone addresses the subject?in Christ,Bob (Quote)

OTNT said

First of all, everyone keeps saying that Ness was not playing devil’s advocate, which he himself even admits. Then for some reason the assumption is made that if he is not paying devil’s advocate then he must believe what he is saying. I think that is a false dichotomy. He said he was simply sharing the issues, as he was asked to do. And yes, I have watched the video, and he gives no indication that the stuff he is sharing is what he believes. He is just giving an overview of the issues, with the assumption, apparently, that science has a lot of evidence that makes it an issue.

As I already noted here – the context is that

1. this is “a talk” given to theology students not science students. The theology students do not resond with “science problems” for evolutionism – rather they respond with “bible problems” and “Gospel problems” for evolutionism.

2. This is not even remotely an exercise in science – as all Ness does is present sweeping claims “as if” the science in favor of evolutionism is not even to be questioned – as if it is in fact “revealed truth”.

3. The point of the exercise focuses on the various ways that the Bible might be bent to accomodate evolutionism and also looking for wasy to bend the writings of Ellen White — or at least get her ministry to some level of ‘back seat’ so that you can marry evolutionism with Adventism.

4. The science classes you point to in your post are not core classes for theology students.

5. IF the religion department tried this stunt on the biology department it would have to be something of the form “Hey biology majors – we have to report that the Bible apparently is solidly behind hyper-Calvinism not the Arminian POV. That means that means no free will. It also means that if you are going to believe in God – even your failed science experiments are not flaws or failures – rather they are ordained by God. If you want to hang on to your faith – you will need to consider Calvinism and also consider re-interpreting your experiments.”

Then they could have a “discussion” about how science needs to change to accomodate Calvinism.

Surely you can see that the story they are telling does not fit what we see on the tape. IF it were true that this is a case of a science professor introducing science problems to a religion class that the professor did not actually BELIEVE to be the real case – THEN there is only two choices.

A. EITHER the religion students are now “knighted” as science majors and given the “homework” of finding the flaws in the sweeping claims for science-supports-evolutionism,

B. OR the professor announces that at the end of class or at a followup lecture the professor will expose the science flaws in the science claims for evolutionism – since “obviously” this is not the domain of theology majors. And in that case – the science professor would need to debunk evolutionism at the level that a theolgy major would find useful in their future work.

Hint – we do not see A or B in the video. INSTEAD what we see in the video is C.

C. The science professor actually ACCEPTS the evolutionist view of origins and NEEDS the theology department to work on ways that the Bible can be bent and Ellen What can be sent to the “back seat” so as to marry evolutionism to Adventism. Because failing to do that leaves only atheism.

In spite of the assertion here at Educate Truth that the , weight of scientific evidence favors the flood and short term creation, that is not the consensus of many SDA scientists that I know. Leonard Brand, for example, is fairly candid about the many difficulties in maintaining these beliefs.

Here again – if we are to reject the work of known scientists like Walter Veith and Ariel Roth and cling to a hand-wringing evolution-is-upon us model – then “it is a science problem” and it should be the science department that is looking for solutions RATHER than the science department coming to the religion department asking for ways to bend the Bible.

And part of the reasons they are such big issues is that SDA scientists have no water-tight case to support the flood and a short term chronology.
Now to get a little pedagogical. It is generally understood in higher education that the personal moral and religious beliefs of the teacher should not be the focus of the teaching process.
…
As long as the teacher is respectful of the students’ personal views no one will fault a teacher for being somewhat open about their personal beliefs, as long as the classroom is not used to indoctrinate. That is a key thing. Indoctrination is out of place in the college classroom.

Which is why we have diverted some much needed tithe, offering and evangelism funds so that we actually have ADVENTIST universities instead of just sending our students off to the nearest public university.

My point in saying these things is to help you see that when Ness brings up the various issues he is careful not to personally endorse any of them. They are simply other viewpoints. And since his talk was about issues surrounding origins in the church, he seems to have been rather successful in identifying the issues, given the firestorm of response he has gotten here. So, as an educator he has done a pretty good job of identifying the issues for those religion and theology majors.

A number of key details have to be ignored to end up arguing in favor of the science department presenting science problems to the religion department and then following up with ways to bend the bible so it will agree with sweeping assertions about the level of evidence that exists for an anti-Bible world view. Critical thinking would have dictated that the science department come up with insightful solutions and SHARE those solutions with the religion department RATHER the hosting the white flag of unthinking-surrender and going to the religion department with a “we are clueless to address evolutionism from a science POV – so is there a way to bend the Bible” form of lecture.

And I wouldn’t worry too much about their faith. First, it was only one lecture, and second, most of those kinds of majors I have known were pretty strong in the faith and it would take more than that to shake them.

Surely it cannot be denied that that is the very thinking that lead LSU down the path it followed – to end up where it is today. Just let the whole thing continue to erode until you have to call in the GC admin to help straighten it out.

Secondly – did we learn NOTHING from the fiasco and then house cleaning at Walla Wall?

Thirdly – are you even reading the reviews that PUC is getting from non-SDA evolutionist sent on site to debate in favor of evolutionism only to see for themselves just how in-the-tank PUC is for evolutionism?

I suggest some reading from those outside observers.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/11/seventh-day-adv.html#more

If this really were a “let us show you the problems and then provide some suggested solutions” talk from the science department – it would have been “noticed” in the video and PUC would be PUSHING that video out to the church RATHER than arguing for all the good reasons to hide it from our own church.

As already noted –

If what you are saying was true in the video – then there would be no problem. And in fact PUC itself would be airing that video as PROOF that the arguments here do not stand up to the facts as seen in the class instead of trying to cover this up in a true damage-control style response.
If what you are saying were affirmed by Ness in his posts here – there would be no problem.
If this really was a case of “science-puzzle -then- science-solution” being explained to the religion department by a biology department prof, then the ending discussion leadership would not be in the direction of “bending the Bible to make it fit evolution” – as seen in the video.
Please click this review and notice the details that Ness is affirming/hedging and in some cases denying here.
http://www.educatetruth.com/media/puc-professor-the-noachian-flood-was-just-a-local-flood/comment-page-2/#comment-21675

in Christ,

Bob

---

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

---