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

By Educate Truth

Prof. Bryan Ness

On October 28, 2010, Dr. Bryan Ness, a biology professor at Pacific Union College since 1989, gave a lecture to a class of theology majors during a colloquium. Throughout his lecture Dr. Ness presents numerous challenges from mainstream science for the worldwide nature of the Noachian Flood (seeming to favor a local flood). He references evidence for a local Black Sea Flood around 4,500 years ago along with a complete lack of scientific evidence for a worldwide deluge as Seventh-day Adventists have historically believed and taught. He also presents questions regarding the importance of the literal 6-day creation week to Adventist theology.

[The video has been pulled until we are confident it complies with copyright laws.]

Dr. Ness has research interests in plant systematics and genetics and an advisory role at PUC in the areas of biology, natural science, veterinary medicine, medical radiography and occupational therapy.

Per report, Dr. Ranzolin, head of the theology department, and Dr. Jean Sheldon were also present in the room during this lecture.

Note that PUC has recently responded to this video clip arguing that Dr. Ness was simply role-playing or playing Devil’s advocate; not actually promoting the definite bias he seemed to be supporting in his lecture against the position of the SDA Church on origins (Link). Many others have commented below that Dr. Ness is a rather outspoken advocate of the SDA stand on a literal 6-day creation week – which is encouraging.

However, as Dr. Ness himself notes in the comments below regarding a worldwide Noachian Flood, “As it stands now I have an open mind on the subject (and I would hope you and others could respect me for that). I would love to find more credible evidence to support the traditional view on the flood, unfortunately, at the moment, such evidence is difficult to find.”

While admirably honest, we find that statement rather disheartening coming from a well-respected and much-loved SDA professor in one of our schools of higher learning. We wish Dr. Ness and all other professors teaching our youth would be able to present evidence for why the SDA position on origins, to include a worldwide Noachian Flood, is a very rational position from an empirical perspective that goes beyond blind faith. Our students need reasons to believe – not just a long list of tough questions without any answers provided by those who are in the best position to know at least a few good answers and competing evidences to give to our youth. Our youth are earnestly searching for good reasons to view the Bible as credible and the basis of the Gospel Message as rational.

After all, the SDA Church has officially asked (at the most recent GC session and prior) for all of its educators to promote the Church’s position on origins. Consider the following request from the General Conference Executive Committee of 2004:

We reaffirm the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the historicity of Genesis 1-11: that the seven days of the Creation account were literal 24-hour days forming a week identical in time to what we now experience as a week; and that the Flood was global in nature.

“We call on all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the church’s position on origins. We, along with Seventh-day Adventist parents, expect students to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world.

http://adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main-stat55.html

Now, we take the word “all” to actually mean “all”. Of course, Dr. Ness did in fact educate his students in his lecture regarding the competing philosophies of origins that dominate contemporary science. However, Dr. Ness did not offer anything to counter or even buffer these interpretations of the evidence. In this particular lecture, he did not even hint at “a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation” or the “global nature” of the Flood.

We certainly welcome him to do this if this is in fact his true goal in the education of our youth. We’d gladly post any video clip or personal statement along these lines that he is willing to submit (in addition to those already posted). Such a statement would go a very long way to clearly putting the video clip presented above into much clearer context. However, the students leaving this one particular lecture would have had to leave with serious doubts in their minds as to the solid credibility of the Biblical accounts as well as the SDA position on origins. That, in our mind, is not the goal of Adventist education.

UPDATE 11/5/2010: Ness’s reference to the formerly lax language of FB#6 (courtesy of Fritz Guy and Lawrence Geraty) in his lecture is no longer valid and should never have been a valid argument for professors in our own schools to see themselves free to undermine the credibility and fundamental importance of the historical SDA position on a literal creation week and worldwide Noachian Flood. But, since many of our professors have in fact been hiding behind the claimed ambiguity in the wording of FB#6, this language has now been more clearly defined, as of this latest GC session (and even as far back as the GC’s executive committee statement of 2004), to include the word “literal” when referencing the creation week.

Now, there may indeed be many who consider our posting of Dr. Ness’s lecture, to be uncalled for; but the word should be out by now to SDA professors at large that they are not free to teach whatever they want in our own schools without any question or general knowledge as to what they are really teaching our youth by the Church membership at large. We all have a right to know what and how our own young people are being taught in our own schools – and to have a say in this process.

UPDATE 11/6/2010: In fact, the following is an audio clip from a talk he gave for a colloquy at PUC on October 22, 2009 (see: link to PUC website), in which he seems to strongly support the literal creation week:

UPDATE 11/7/2010: Below is a short clip of relevant excerpts from Dr. Ness’s discussion with PUC’s theology majors (originally over 42 minutes long):

UPDATE 11/8/2010: From a comment posted by a former PUC student @Benjamin Burkhardt regarding what Dr. Ness taught him when he was at PUC between 2004 to 2006, regarding a local vs. a global Noachian Flood:

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.

This is not some minor point. The local Flood idea opens the door, and essentially requires, the intelligent mind to interpret the geologic column and fossil records as being the records of vast periods of time of Earth’s history. It is an argument that is directly in support of the idea that life has existed and evolved on this planet far longer than the SDA belief that all life on Earth is very young and that death did not exist here, for any sentient form of life, until the Fall of man.

Dr. Ness may not consciously realize it, but his teaching on this particular topic of a local vs. a worldwide Flood is a big problem for an SDA institution like PUC.

419 thoughts on “PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood?

  1. Dear Eddie:

    If in fact Dr. Ness holds faithfully to Fundamental Belief No. 6, believing in the six literal days of creation and a universal Flood, it is sad that this didn’t come through clearly in the lecture under discussion. I agree that one lecture or sermon is not sufficient to define a presenter’s beliefs. But the practice of listing objections to our beliefs–in this case, belief in a literal, recent, six-literal day creation and a global Flood–while not offering substantive reasons as to why the objections are invalid, is the type of education to which many of us are offering protest.

    It is like the old Native American custom of dumping a child into the middle of the river as a means of teaching him to swim. If the child floats and stays that way, fine. It he sinks and drowns, so be it. This is comparable to raising objections to one or another aspect of our faith, and not presenting sufficient evidence to demonstrate why the objection is wrong. I have seen the faith of many of my friends destroyed because of this tactic. The teacher assumes the student is mature enough to handle this kind of open-ended uncertainty, when in reality no one–regardless of age or maturity–is truly able to handle it.

    If in fact Dr. Ness believes the classic Adventist stance on creation and the Flood, I am very happy. I just wish he would have made that clearer in this particular lecture. As a pastor, I realize I am always on trial. I am never off duty. If at any time I am asked about my faith, and I fail to give adequate reason for it, I know I have erred grievously. We are living in chaotic and confusing times, and clarity regarding our faith is imperative for all who represent the church in any official capacity.

    One further thought about methods of education. I am fascinated by how Ellen White draws a contrast to Jesus’ method of teaching as distinct from that of the Jewish leaders of His day:

    “But while His teaching was simple, He spoke as one having authority. This characteristic set His teaching in contrast with that of all others. The rabbis spoke with doubt and hesitancy, as if the Scriptures might be interpreted to mean one thing or exactly the opposite. The hearers were daily involved in greater uncertainty” (The Desire of Ages, p. 253).

    When I hear people on this forum denounced as “Pharisees” because they demand clarity from Adventist teachers, I get the feeling those using this label may not know what pharisaism truly is.

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  2. @ Kevin Paulson

    If I work for Chrysler and decide to publicly declare that Toyotas are better, Chrysler has the right to hold me accountable and relieve me of employment. If I work for President Obama’s re-election campaign and decide to publicly declare that such as Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin would make a better President, then the Obama campaign has the right to fire me and seek a loyal representative to take my place.
    This is not intolerance. It is integrity.

    Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I’m not sure why you think your analogy is at all meaningful, but I’m game to consider it.

    So now I have I’d like to extend your analogy further. You’re a pastor who should have some understanding of the ethics of how people should treat each other. Let’s say YOU are a rank-and-file employee of Chrysler who discovered that one of the managers had made a statement at a meeting that you believed misrepresented the company, and you actually had a video of a portion of that talk. Do you believe it would be ethical for you to immediately post it on the web for the whole world to see (“look at the traitor our management has hired!”), or would it be more ethical for you to first approach the manager and ask for clarification on what he was trying to say? Would it be more ethical to discuss the issue with higher management levels before going to the world wide web? Or does “integrity” (your word) and expediency require an immediate reaction to make sure everyone at that company (and beyond) understands exactly what is going on? Finally, as a Christian, do you think you should feel compelled to deal with this situation any differently than, say, a secular humanist?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  3. @ Sean Pitman

    Did you forget the part about “pulpits and lecterns”? – I’d hardly call that private conversation or privileged communication.

    Several months ago, you very publicly chastized (here at Educate Truth) the President of Southern Adventist University for taking a position against yours and against that of the SDA Church at large. When challenged, you gave as evidence the conversation your father had with Dr. Bietz. Please tell me, did this conversation with your father qualify as something that came from the “pulpits and lecterns?” Or is there some other reason why you feel entitled to make public accusations about others without complying with the express written command of the Lord Jesus Christ, as set forth in Matthew 18, and the explicit requirements of the SDA Church Manual?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  4. @ Pastor Paulsen

    Ellen White is very clear in her writings that the issues covered by the formula for conflict resolution in Matthew 18:15-17 refer to matters of personal trespass, not to issues which–in her words–”threaten the prosperity of the church and of the cause” (2T 15). A more appropriate passage for dealing with public offenses against the church, according to both James and Ellen White, is I Tim. 5:20: “Then that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear” (2T 15).

    By the way, I think it’s a gross distortion and exaggeration to treat a single lecture by Dr. Brian Ness as something that would “threaten the prosperity of the church and of the cause.” Further, I don’t think it is up to you to make a decision that justifies the need to “rebuke before all.” You and others here should have sought advice from SDA leadership before declaring yourselves the final arbiter of this matter. The silence from the General Conference leadership tells us all that they do not consider this a serious threat to the church and of the cause. And if they do not respond anytime soon to this particular situation, your collective rush to judgment will clearly be found wanting.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  5. @Professor Kent:

    Several months ago, you very publicly chastized (here at Educate Truth) the President of Southern Adventist University for taking a position against yours and against that of the SDA Church at large. When challenged, you gave as evidence the conversation your father had with Dr. Bietz. Please tell me, did this conversation with your father qualify as something that came from the “pulpits and lecterns?” Or is there some other reason why you feel entitled to make public accusations about others without complying with the express written command of the Lord Jesus Christ, as set forth in Matthew 18, and the explicit requirements of the SDA Church Manual?

    Why deliberately misquote me like this? I never said that my father had a private conversation with Dr. Gordon Bietz. I made it quite clear that my father was at a very public talk within a sizable audience of educators before which Dr. Bietz spoke. Such a public address is not a private or privileged conversation coming from a paid representative of the SDA Church.

    Also, a teacher cannot undermine the basic goals and ideals with a student by personal E-mail or in a one-on-one conversation and expect that kind of conversation to be protected as privileged. A teacher is always speaking to a student as an official representative of the Church. As such, he/she should never feel like what he/she says in regard to challenges of the SDA Church before a single student should not be known by the Church at large. The individual employee has no right to act subversively before a single member of the SDA Church without the entire Church being privy to what was said or done contrary to the express will of the Church for its own paid representatives…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  6. Our students need reasons to believe – not just a long list of tough questions without any answers provided by those who are in the best position to know at least a few good answers and competing evidences to give to our youth.

    I think that even when I was a college student, I felt that college was not the place to learn questions without answers, but the place to learn how to find answers to questions, real answers, answers that stand up to scrutiny, answers that bolster faith in God’s Word and the Spirit of Prophecy.

    I believe it to be a moral wrong to plant doubts in the heads of students, or anyone else. Such doubts are evil seeds that may lie dormant for awhile, then sprout and bear evil fruit.

    That being said, I did not see the video of Dr. Ness, and therefore cannot criticize or exonerate.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  7. @ Eddie:

    In one of the more recent posts you suggest that you’ve been affirming Dr Ness’s support of the six-day creation week, and that I haven’t listened.

    The quote below is one of your more significant statements. According to it, Dr Ness personally believes that the Genesis account is historically true. I’m glad to hear it, and have no reason to disbelieve it. That puts Dr Ness in a different category than the instructors at a certain other university who ridicule such a “simplistic” belief.

    It is unfortunate that the spotlight has picked out Dr Ness like this, since it is quite possible that his stance is more creationist than those of his fellow teachers in the same school.

    But I can still remember when I was a college student. It would have been most confusing to me to hear my professor say, in a religious setting, that the Genesis account is historically true, while in the classroom setting appearing to accept billions of years of life on this planet as factual. I cannot personally have one “spiritual” belief while having a diametrically opposed “scientific” belief. Yet I do know people who can live with that kind of inner conflict. I just know I can’t. And if I had been persuaded that the scenario of billions of years is factual, then I would have had to question the truthfulness of the biblical account.

    You seem frustrated that I do not accept at face value your repeated claims that Dr Ness supports the church’s stance on creation. That’s understandable. But please realize that for the last couple of years, we have seen repeated claims from the La Sierra biology department of exactly the same nature — that they support the church’s stand on creation. Yet we have seen the class outlines. We have read the professors’ statements that contradict such a stand, and we have the testimony of students that this is not, in fact, true. So please forgive us if we ask for more evidence than just a general statement that sounds no different than that given by the La Sierra.

    As I mentioned before, P.S. has made some helpful specific points, which would give Dr Ness a passing grade of “C” according to Dr Giem’s helpful scale as given in the lecture at http://www.viddler.com/explore/educatetruth/videos/16/. (I hope you can find time to watch it, though the audio quality on some significant portions is poor.)

    Perhaps Dr Ness deserves better. Perhaps his classes are an example of how science should be taught at Adventist institutions. So far, we don’t have the evidence to reach that conclusion. The one lecture we have seen — even taken in the context of an honors seminar — demonstrates an unquestioning acceptance of the conclusions of naturalistic science, with an apparent effort to harmonize the biblical account with these conclusions.

    Naturalistic science claims to be a reliable source of truth. The Bible also claims to be a reliable source of truth. When the two conflict on a significant point, with both being quite explicit, which should the Adventist Christian regard as a more reliable source of truth? Dr Ness, in a spiritual setting, seems to say that the Bible is a more reliable source. That’s good. But if it is, then one cannot treat the directly contrary conclusions of naturalistic science as given facts in a classroom setting — unless one has separate mental compartments for science and spirituality.

    Can you at least begin to see what I’m driving at?
    (I’m not questioning Dr Ness’s integrity, but I do have a problem with his classroom presentation.)

    (By the way, I believe you greatly exaggerate the situation by saying that Dr Ness is “shamefully demonized” here.)

    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? Can you name one other SDA science professor who stood up in front of an entire college or university and preached a sermon about the days of creation week? Would any science professor at Southern Adventist University or Southwestern Adventist University be willing to give such a devotional talk in front of the entire university community? I’m just stunned to see him suddenly being demonized here. And shamefully.  

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  8. I respect those who believe in a literal Genesis flood, but I also have to be honest about the scientific difficulties with such a belief.

    By saying this, are you saying that you respect yourself, since you believe in a literal Genesis flood? Or are you saying that you don’t believe that, but you respect those who do?

    I am an educator and must at the very least state where the issues lie.

    As a Seventh-day Adventist educator, do you inform your students that a foundational Christian educational issue is that we must be educated to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God rather than exalt human speculations above His Word?

    And do you also inform them that as far as Creation and the Flood go, a key issue is that the Lord Jesus Christ told us in no uncertain terms that the idea that the 6 days of creation are not 6 days is a most dangerous form of infidelity?

    I think that if our students can grasp these two key issue and internalize them, then they can handle whatever scientific issues need to also be discussed. But to discuss the other issues without first establishing these seems dangerous, and getting the cart before the horse.

    We must not be suckered by the science falsely so called that is so prevalent out in the world today

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  9. As for my beliefs on the Noachian flood: 1) What I personally believe is really none of your business or the business of church leaders,

    This statement sounds kind of strange. Since when are we not to take an interest in the spiritual welfare of our fellow church members? If a member doesn’t believe in the state of the dead, or the virgin birth, or the gifts of the Spirit, or the Sabbath, or Noah’s Flood, we can’t just shrug our shoulders like Cain and say, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The shepherd looked for the one lost sheep, the lady swept her house and looked for the one lost coin.

    In saying the above I didn’t say you don’t believe in Noah’s flood, but it would make a lot more sense when doing damage control to just come out and say that you do believe that Noah’s Flood was global and produced the geologic column.

    Just to set the record straight on the flood issue. I view truth as progressive, as does EGW, last time I checked.

    Yes, progressive, but not contradictory. God will not say something today that contradicts what He pointedly said yesterday.

    How do we test “truth” today to see if it is truth? “To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them.” So what God said yesterday is the way we test what is said today, to see if it came from God or another source.

    Thus, the idea that the Flood was local comes from another source.

    I would love to find more credible evidence to support the traditional view on the flood, unfortunately, at the moment, such evidence is difficult to find.

    Again, this sounds odd. We have tons and tons of sediment laid down by water action all over the place, and the evidence is difficult to find?

    I do not advocate putting human reason above God’s Word, but neither am I willing to simply assume that all past Biblical interpretations are correct beyond all revision.

    We’re not talking about an interpretation of what the Bible says, are we? Aren’t we instead talking about what the Bible says?

    If you know of a way that “world” (kosmos) in 2 Pet. 3:6 doesn’t mean the whole world, I’m interested in hearing about it.

    Surely such a way of looking at the Bible is valid, or are you saying that on certain beliefs our dogma is sealed and any suggestion of alternatives is heresy?  

    The idea that the Genesis Flood was not worldwide is heresy and skepticism, and no Adventist educator should be afraid to label it as such.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  10. @Kevin Paulson,

    As I said before, I do not wish to go into too much depth regarding my personal beliefs, so I’ll decline to respond to your assessment/evaluation of what you regard to be the validity of my faith (which, by the way, is astonishingly thorough and definitive considering how little you know about me or my faith); on that matter, I will simply say that I, like you and everyone, have the a right to a worldview of my choosing, and whether or not you approve of my brand of Adventism/Christianity is, quite frankly, immaterial. But thank you for rhetoric, which led me to ponder a new question: Can the SDA Church excommunicate members based solely on their beliefs?

    I do want to address one erroneous assumption you made about me:

    You say you believe in God “on most days” and that you are willing to allow God to have set in motion the process of natural selection which you acknowledge to be brutal and merciless.

    If you go back and read my last comment, you will absolutely not find my alleged acknowledgment that the process of natural selection is indeed brutal or merciless. I frankly am hard-pressed to see how one could misinterpret my words so drastically. In fact, I do not think natural selection as it exists in the wild is all that brutal or merciless. Or perhaps you believe that, had original sin never occurred, all of God’s creatures would still be living in perfect harmony with one another, multiplying ad infinitum?

    I assume you know that the historical consequences of believing in this means of natural progress, and in applying it to the human experience, have been grotesque.

    I am so perplexed by this argument. No member of rational society, of which I consider myself a part, is suggesting that the process that governs the world of beasts should ever be applied to humans, and you won’t find many intelligent atheists, let alone Christian humanists, who will use natural selection as an excuse for the truly merciless and brutal behavior of HUMANS.

    Just out of curiosity, what is your take on the origin of the natural selection process in the natural world? You don’t appear to reject that it exists, so I’m wondering how you explain it.

    It is clear where your ideas and perspective have led you.

    Careful there, Pastor. Judge not lest ye be judged.

    Such clarity only serves to further demonstrate the incompatibility of such educational methods as those you defend with the goals and purposes of authentic Adventism.

    What exactly is this “authentic” Adventism of which you speak? Is it Adventism as it is prescribed by and trickled down from the higher echelons of the GC? Is it the Adventism of 1863? I’m genuinely curious to hear your thoughts.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  11. Sean, I apologize. My memory let me down. You indeed wrote this:

    “Beyond this, however, my father was recently at SAU for a trust services conference. During this conference Dr. Bietz gave a presentation to his group in which he, in no uncertain terms, affirmed the position of LSU and argued in defense of their “academic freedom”. He, like Dr. Geraty, seems to have subscribed to the “big tent” view of Adventism where the Church is tolerate of teachers and preachers who believe in and even actively promote a long-age view of origins on this planet… enabling them to somehow attempt to be in line with both mainstream science as well as a semblance of Adventism.”

    It really is tragic that the President of the most conservative and faithful SDA university would be so tolerant of theological pluralism. Very disturbing. Has there been an effort to remove him from his position of great responsibility?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  12. @ Pastor Kevin Paulson

    But the practice of listing objections to our beliefs–in this case, belief in a literal, recent, six-literal day creation and a global Flood–while not offering substantive reasons as to why the objections are invalid, is the type of education to which many of us are offering protest.

    To be frank, Pastor Paulson, you simply don’t get it. What, exactly, would you like Dr. Ness to say?

    I have been rough on Sean Pitman the past few days, and I give Educate Truth high marks for posting virtually all of my comments. But let’s get down to some very elemental facts. Is there ANY evidence that a flood literally covered every scrap of land at one point in earth history? The answer, very frankly, is a resounding NO. The problem isn’t that Sean is wrong to insist that a preponderence of scientific evidence supports the SDA interpretation of Genesis on the totality of the flood. The problem is that there is NO evidence that even points to it as a likelihood. Yet you are demanding that Dr. Ness tell a lie for Jesus.

    In another thread, Sean Pitman used very basic reasoning to prove that the earth was once entirely covered by water. He pointed out that the cretaceous layer (a sedimentary layer formed by water action) has a worldwide distribution, and therefore one can safely conclude the planet was at one point covered in entirety with water, without a single pile of dirt on the surface. One could similarly point out that dirt has a worldwide distribution, and therefore one can safely conclude the planet was at one point covered in entirety with dirt, without a single puddle of water on the surface. I know this is very sophisticated to grasp, so I will understand if the logic here escapes anyone.

    To be continued…

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  13. The bigger problem which Dr. Ness brought up is whether all land animals today can be shown to be the descendents of animals that originated from a single location: where the ark came to rest. Where is this elusive evidence? For some reason it has yet to be found by the very brightest minds. Scientists have produced tens of thousands of research articles on the biogeography, taxonomy, molecular variation, and other biological attributes of all major animal groups. Despite this amazing wealth of information, no one is finding evidence that all these organisms, and the amply-described variation among them, originated from a single location on this planet. It can’t be found in the DNA of land animals. It can’t be found in the exoskeletons of insects. It can’t be found in the scales of fishes or reptiles. It can’t be found in the pillage of mammals, or the feathers of birds. It hasn’t been found by the best known and brightest creationists–not even by the most faithful Seventh-day Adventist creationists, including George Price, Frank Marsh, Ariel Roth, Leonard Brand, Arthur Chadwick…and Sean Pitman. If the evidence for this amazing Biblical “fact” could be found, it would be deemed one of the greatest discoveries in biology of all time, right up there with the discovery of DNA. But it can’t be found!

    You might insist it’s in a certain book of the Bible, there for all to see with a plain “Thus saith the Lord.” But you won’t find it in the Book of Nature. You can open every single page from start to finish; you can scrutinize every letter printed in ink; but you’re not going to find it. And for one good reason: it isn’t there. You’ll sooner find it in the Oracles of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (Some have argued that God’s angels dispersed the animals after the flood. A God of confusion has certainly deceived us if that was the case.)

    Dr. Ness, who knows all of this, should have lied. The Church needs his lies. By failing to reassure his audience that the weight of evidence favors the SDA postion, Dr. Ness has seriously “threaten[ed] the prosperity of the church and of the cause,” as you have noted, Pastor Paulson. Our hapless students are now in grave peril. If the flood covered only 99% of the land and killed only 99% of the land animals rather than 100%, then clearly the Sabbath is a joke; the virgin birth was manufactured; original sin was hardly obscene; and salvation is a cruel joke. God spare us these consequences! Let’s punish Dr. Ness so that he knows better what to say next time and will never be so cavalier in the future.

    By the way, I remain open to the possibility that the word “all” in Genesis sometimes really does mean “all,” even in this particular case, but in the absence of any evidence, I am open to this only as a matter of faith. But shame on me for putting my faith ahead of science.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  14. They will know we are Christians by our hate by our hate. They will know we are Christians by our hate!
    At least this with this song we would be educating people to the truth.
    What is being to Dr. Ness a committed YEC is enough to make one weep!
    In the grip of grace
    Steve Moran

    The “grip of grace” that you are in seems to encourage you to villify this site – and use no quote of anyone here saying anything at all in particular as your “complaint” to justify villifying everyone here.

    Why not be specific? quote someone who has said something amiss about Ness based on the actual details in the video itself. Make at least a tiny effort to “appear objective” even if you find mastery of that idea to be difficult.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  15. I have been following this site for several days but have hesitated to comment because I’m not a fan of arguments among church members, nor have I been able to discern what the main issue is based on the comments I’ve read from both ends of the spectrum. However, I can no longer sit silently because my heart is aching over this situation.

    To the makers and defenders of this site, I understand why you exist and in no way condemn you for trying to defend truth in an ever changing world. As far as I can tell, your purpose is to protect students from the harm of false teachings. While I don’t agree with the tactics you use, I at least respect what I see as the motive behind them.

    That being said, I believe you may never be convinced by what anyone tells you about the integrity of Dr. Ness’ teaching, because you do not know him. You have not sat in his classes, listened to his sermons, or conversed with him about theology and science. You have one example, taken out of context. Unfortunately, students don’t make such videos in order to uplift their professors. If they did, I can assure you that I would have a wealth of evidence to show you that he does indeed present both sides of the argument within the paradigm of Adventist Christianity. In his class, I was taught to evaluate, to reason, and to conclude based on scientific evidence and the Bible. He was one of the greatest teachers I have ever had the pleasure of learning from. My Adventist belief system was only affirmed in his class, because I finally understood how science and faith are not mutually exclusive as the world teaches, but go hand in hand and support one another.

    I do not believe in macroevolution or that Noah’s flood was a local event. Nor do I condone a professor teaching this as fact in an Adventist classroom. I do, however, strongly believe in knowing all sides of an argument–which is what I think Dr. Ness was trying to share in the video you saw. Even believing as I do, I’m not afraid to acknowledge the fact that the Bible writers did make mistakes when it comes to science. If not, we should all go back to believing that the sun revolves around the earth (Joshua 10:12-13). Isaiah 1:18 reminds us that God doesn’t want faith without reason. He invites our questions and concerns. Without them, his followers would be a group of unhappy robots, and God would have had no reason to give us minds in the first place.

    This whole situation makes me very sad and I hope that you will take students’ testimony to heart. It is the only evidence we have that Dr. Ness is not only a wonderful, Christian man, but an amazing teacher and avid defender of Biblical principles. I hope that one day I am half the teacher that he is.

    May God guide those who genuinely seek truth in this matter. My prayers are with you.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  16. Dear Brandy:

    Thank you again for your comments and questions.

    You ask whether the Adventist Church removes anyone from membership based on their beliefs. Absolutely. Go read the Church Manual in its chapter on Church Discipline. The very first reason for which such discipline can be applied–ahead of adultery, unscriptural divorce, drug trafficking, business fraud, etc–is “denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel and in the cardinal doctrines of the church or teaching doctrines contrary to the same” (Church Manual, 2005 edition, p. 195).

    I am a bit mystified by your comments on the process of natural selection. It is hard for me to understand how anyone would believe that the strong devouring the weak is not a brutal and merciless act. But according to Darwinism, this is how nature makes progress. And if human beings are seen as products of nature, this is how they make progress as well. Perhaps the atheists and humanists of your acquaintance do not take this premise to its logical conclusion. But since the rise of Darwinian thought in the Western world, many in fact have. And the results have not been pretty.

    What is important to bear in mind is that if one accepts theistic evolution, it is assumed that God is the author of this brutal procedure, and that this is how He determined that nature would function. Such persons do not believe there was ever a perfect world, one without death or suffering or pain. Whatever your personal worldview, the fact remains that it is impossible to harmonize such a perspective with the most basic teachings of Christianity, let alone Adventism.

    Certainly the natural world is different today from what God intended, on account of the sin of our first parents. But if you believe God is the author of evolution, you believe this brutal life-and-death struggle has always existed in nature. That is the big problem if one wishes to believe the Bible and also believe in evolution.

    Regarding where your beliefs seem to have led you, I think all on this forum can figure that out for themselves, from your own statements. Sadly, you seem to have embraced the false definition of judgmentalism so common just now in many Christian (including some Adventist) circles. (I guess I’m also curious about the fact that you quote the Bible to me as an authority. How much of the Bible are you willing to accept as authoritative, if as you say your Adventism is “more cultural than religious”?)

    Jesus’ command not to judge (Matt. 7:1) has nothing to do with identifying wrong ideas or wrong practices on the basis of God’s Word. Jesus didn’t contradict Isaiah, who declared, “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show My people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins” (Isa. 58:1). Neither was Jesus contradicting Himself, since in the very chapter where He says not to judge, He also says, “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:20). Fruits are things on the outside, like expressed ideas and visible practices. What Jesus in fact forbade when He commands us not to judge is an assessment of another’s heart, for God alone can know this (I Kings 8:39). I am sorry if I have come across in this conversation as claiming to know what is in your heart, for that has not been my wish.

    You ask what I define as “authentic Adventism.” Very simple. What is taught by the consensus of Scripture and the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy, and expressed in the Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as voted by the worldwide Adventist body in session. Commonly-held opinions, whether among scholars or others, do not count here. All must be tested by the objective measure of God’s written counsel.

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  17. 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? Can you name one other SDA science professor who stood up in front of an entire college or university and preached a sermon about the days of creation week? Would any science professor at Southern Adventist University or Southwestern Adventist University be willing to give such a devotional talk in front of the entire university community? I’m just stunned to see him suddenly being demonized here. And shamefully.

    http://www.puc.edu/campus-services/media-services/recordings

    October 22, 2009. Right click, select “Save As”, download, and listen. Judge for yourselves.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  18. @Kevin Paulson,

    At the risk of straying even farther away from the original topic of this post, I must ask, again: how do YOU explain the process of natural selection in the natural world?

    You are holding strong with your views on natural selection, yet you never answered my question. And while we’re on the subject, I don’t really understand what you are trying to prove by invoking examples of the many ways Darwinist principles have failed in human societies. No one is disputing that fact, including most atheists. This is why we differentiate between the natural world and the rational world, both of which humans are a part. Did God not create us with the necessary equipment to rule over the fish in the sea?

    To answer your question, I am willing to accept the authority of the Bible while also taking into consideration the fallible nature of the humans who have interpreted, authored and compiled it. You say that “all must be tested by the objective measure of God’s written counsel.” I would add that all must also be tested by the subjective measure of Christ’s teachings.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  19. Dear Laurie:

    I thank you for your contribution to this discussion. Perhaps you haven’t wanted to get involved, but I am glad you did. As I have noted elsewhere in the forums on this site, I am grateful for the candor shared by the students at PUC who have sat at the feet of this particular professor.

    Perhaps you don’t enjoy controversy, and indeed there are many who do not. (Only a very few people, as you can see, regularly participate in the conversations you see on this site, often over and over again.) But I think you would agree that nothing is gained by avoiding a difficult topic. And whether you agree or disagree with the tactics you perceive to be used by the organizers of this site, it seems you rightly understand the gravity of this issue and its significance for Adventism–not to mention the core of Christianity.

    Let me ask you a simple question. You say you do not believe in macroevolution or that Noah’s Flood was merely local. From having sat in the classes of the professor in question, would you say he too denies macroevolution or the theory that Noah’s Flood was just local?

    Let me ask you a second question. From your experience as a student of this professor and his colleagues, and from your association with fellow students who have sat in their classes, have you found students’ faith strengthened or weakened in the doctrine of a literal creation week approximately 6,000 years ago, and the universal nature of the Flood as described in Genesis?

    While I again reiterate my thanks to those PUC students who have shared their thoughts in this setting, I must confess that much of what they have said has done little to allay the concerns of the organizers of this site or the concerns of others (such as myself) who likewise seek faithfulness to fundamental Adventism from those who work for the church as pastors and teachers. Much of what I have read, from the testimonies of former and current PUC students on this forum, has simply been that the professor in question has encouraged them to think, that he is a wonderful person, very God-centered, etc. All of this sounds fine, but I haven’t yet heard any of this man’s students say he strengthened (or perhaps restored) their faith–scientifically or theologically–in a literal creation week approximately 6,000 years ago, or their faith in the universal reality of the Genesis Flood.

    One point I am deeply concerned about, which has troubled me for many years in the midst of controversies such as this, is the tendency of certain ones to allow relationships to gain the upper hand over truth. If one who addresses a particular topic comes across as a nice, charismatic, obviously intelligent, apparently sincere person, it is easy for people to simply accept what he or she says without testing it by God’s Word. If we like someone, and he or she seems to be helping us sort issues out in our personal or spiritual journey at a given time, that seems to be all that matters to some of us. Too many seem to think that when the devil’s agents confront us, they will likely be mean-spirited, unattractive, boring people to whom none of our friends pay any attention. Yet the Bible warns us that the enemy and his ministers often come in very attractive guises (II Cor. 11:14-15).

    Again, I thank you for your involvement in this conversation. I am glad you recognize the depth of concern that has motivated this site and the issues it has raised. I fully grant that the professor in question may have been misunderstood. I too, as a pastor, have been misunderstood at times. But I wish I could have more reassurance, from him as well as his supporters on this site, that he in fact does believe in the fundamentals of Bible-Spirit of Prophecy creationism, and that his teaching has encouraged others to believe the same.

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  20. After reading all these comments, it seems (maybe I missed it) that EducateTruth has failed to answer the key question about context.

    Does EducateTruth feel the video was in context, given how the introduction and the stated purpose of the lecture was not included?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  21. Dear Brandy:

    How do I explain the process of natural selection in the earth of today? In a word, brutal. That is because of sin. But this is not how God created the world, as theistic evolution would inevitably mean. My problem with theistic evolution is that it would make God responsible for such a process in the very beginning. The fact that such brutality now exists as a means of achieving balance in the natural world is beside the point.

    It would seem we have a very different view of Biblical interpretation and the transcendent nature of Bible truth as Scripture presents it. As to what you call “the subjective measure of Christ’s teachings,” you really have me confused. On what basis, and in what way, would you describe Christ’s teachings as “subjective”?

    Just curious.

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  22. @ Pastor Kevin Paulson

    Let me ask you a simple question. You say you do not believe in macroevolution or that Noah’s Flood was merely local. From having sat in the classes of the professor in question, would you say he too denies macroevolution or the theory that Noah’s Flood was just local?

    To be honest, the class I took from Dr. Ness was during my freshman or sophomore year in college (around 2004), and one reason it stood out to me was because of the way theological issues were handled. I was a Religion major with little interest in science and Dr. Ness found a way to actually make me sit up and take notice. I have little recollection of studying Noah’s Flood. I know we did, but I just don’t remember. That class was probably the first time in my life that I was presented with theories regarding the age of the earth other than the simple cut and dried creation vs. evolution arguments.

    While I can in no way judge Dr. Ness’ personal beliefs, I think sufficient evidence shows that he is a man committed to Adventist principles. He said himself on this board that he upholds our doctrines as stated in our fundamental beliefs. In his class, it was very clear to me that he is a creationist who believes in a literal six day creation week. I have heard his sermon posted a few comments back, and it only reaffirms this truth. I guess I’m having a little trouble understanding how this hasn’t been made clear already.

    Let me ask you a second question. From your experience as a student of this professor and his colleagues, and from your association with fellow students who have sat in their classes, have you found students’ faith strengthened or weakened in the doctrine of a literal creation week approximately 6,000 years ago, and the universal nature of the Flood as described in Genesis?

    I can only speak for myself in this matter (I don’t recall this ever being an issue among my friends), and I can tell you very plainly as I stated earlier that my faith in Adventist teachings were only strengthened in his class. That includes the doctrine of a literal creation week approximately 6,000 years ago and a universal flood.

    All of this sounds fine, but I haven’t yet heard any of this man’s students say he strengthened (or perhaps restored) their faith–scientifically or theologically–in a literal creation week approximately 6,000 years ago, or their faith in the universal reality of the Genesis Flood.

    I actually have read accounts of this testimony on this board already, but perhaps they were not stated clearly enough. I have always been blessed with a strong faith in God and the teachings of Scripture, but Dr. Ness only reaffirmed these beliefs and actually strengthened them because he showed me how they fit into the realm of science. He taught me that creationism is not an idiotic idea as much of the world views it, but a legitimate response to the questions of our origins.

    One point I am deeply concerned about, which has troubled me for many years in the midst of controversies such as this, is the tendency of certain ones to allow relationships to gain the upper hand over truth. If one who addresses a particular topic comes across as a nice, charismatic, obviously intelligent, apparently sincere person, it is easy for people to simply accept what he or she says without testing it by God’s Word. If we like someone, and he or she seems to be helping us sort issues out in our personal or spiritual journey at a given time, that seems to be all that matters to some of us. Too many seem to think that when the devil’s agents confront us, they will likely be mean-spirited, unattractive, boring people to whom none of our friends pay any attention. conversation.

    I understand this concern and echo it. I realize you don’t know me so have no idea I’m not one of these “certain ones” you speak of. This has been a very real issue in my own life that I have pondered long and hard. As a Bible teacher and chaplain myself, I take the responsibility of God’s Word very seriously. I believe that Bryan Ness is a sincere, Christian man, but this is not why I stand in defense of him. As you mentioned, misunderstandings happen all the time in the church, and this is how I view the situation at hand. Students have reacted defensively because of the way this was brought to light and because they know, like I do, that it’s a grievous mistake. They’re hurting for one of the family.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  23. In regards to the comments about all the evidence for the Flood:

    “Apart from Bible history, geology can prove nothing. Those who reason so confidently upon its discoveries have no adequate conception of the size of men, animals, and trees before the Flood, or of the great changes which then took place. Relics found in the earth do give evidence of conditions differing in many respects from the present, but the time when these conditions existed can be learned only from the Inspired Record. In the history of the Flood, inspiration has explained that which geology alone could never fathom. In the days of Noah, men, animals, and trees, many times larger than now exist, 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 men, with their vain reasoning, fall into the same error as did the people before the Flood–the things which God gave them as a benefit, they turn into a curse by making a wrong use of them.
    {PP 112.3} ”

    So that sounds like we shouldn’t expect to find any more evidence that it takes to establish faith. If God had wanted us to not need faith to believe in the flood, he would have petrified a few t-rex’s that had just snacked on people, or maybe at Paluxy river there would be human tracks running away from the dinos, or maybe there would be a city covered in coal.

    We have to be honest in our beliefs, and not just except something because it was what we taught a long time ago.
    “We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed. {TM 30.2} ”
    ~

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  24. “We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed. {TM 30.2} ”

    Amen to that.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  25. A comparison between the comments of Dr. Ness and those of a number of LSU’s science professors:

    Most at LSU, like DR. Ness, also oppose a purely naturalistic evolutionary theory – to include abiogenesis. Their real problem is over the age of the geologic column and fossil records, which they believe were truly produced over tens and hundreds of millions of years of time.

    In this sense, Ness’s arguments, as they were presented in the one lecture I’ve seen anyway (see above video clip), do not seem to me to be fundamentally different from theirs. His claim to believe in and promote a literal six-day creation week, if that is indeed his claim (and it does in fact seem to be the case according to an audio clip of a lecture Ness gave in 2009 – see above audio clip), seems to me to be completely at odds with his apparent willingness to accept and promote, in class, the unanswerable validity of mainstream interpretations of the ages of the geologic/fossil records and the asserted lack of any reasonable empirical evidence for a worldwide Noachian Flood. Such a position, if truly reflective of Ness’s position, is also completely at odds with the SDA Church’s view on the origin of all life on this planet being produced within one literal week of time and the worldwide nature of the Noachian Flood within recent history.

    Ness’s reference to the formerly lax language of FB#6 (courtesy of Fritz Guy and Lawrence Geraty) in his lecture is not longer valid and should never have been a valid argument for professors in our own schools to see themselves free to undermine the credibility and fundamental importance of the historical SDA position on a literal creation week and worldwide Noachian Flood. But, since many of our professors have in fact been hiding behind the claimed ambiguity in the wording of FB#6, this language has now been more clearly defined, as of this latest GC session (and even as far back as the GC’s executive committee statement of 2004), to include the word “literal” when referencing the creation week.

    Now, there may indeed be many who consider our posting of Dr. Ness’s lecture, to be uncalled for; but the word should be out by now to SDA professors at large that they are not free to teach whatever they want in our own schools without any question or general knowledge as to what they are really teaching our youth by the Church membership at large. We all have a right to know what and how our own young people are being taught in our own schools – and to have a say in this process.

    Many may consider this sort of thinking “wild eyed” and “fanatical”, but I truly believe that people have a right to know what is going on in our classrooms and make up their own minds. And, I personally don’t mind being called names or not taken seriously by some to get this message across. I’ve even had my share of hate mail and even a few personal threats over this issue. So be it…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  26. @ Sean Pitman

    Ness’s reference to the formerly lax language of FB#6 (courtesy of Fritz Guy and Lawrence Geraty) in his lecture is not longer valid and should never have been a valid argument for professors in our own schools to see themselves free to undermine the credibility and fundamental importance of the historical SDA position on a literal creation week and worldwide Noachian Flood. But, since many of our professors have in fact been hiding behind the claimed ambiguity in the wording of FB#6, this language has now been more clearly defined, as of this latest GC session (and even as far back as the GC’s executive committee statement of 2004), to include the word “literal” when referencing the creation week.

    So help us all out, Sean. When is it okay to discuss problems with the current wording of FB#6 without “undermining” it? Is it “wrong” in a classroom but “right” at a GC session? Or was the current wording (which remains unchanged for now, by the way) “right” to discuss in a classroom before the GC session, and “wrong” after the GC session?

    I give you an “A” for splitting hairs.

    And for the record, I am not one who has ever threatened Dr. Pitman. I see nothing to be gained by that. The better approach is to critically and publicly evaluate his credibility and Christian charity. He’s a good sport for that. I admire his tenacity.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  27. The storm arising from the posting of some students recording of a seminar discussion at PUC had nothing at all to do with competition or someone else using the work of Prof Ness so as to compete with him or PUC in anyway.

    The storm had to do with the fact that the intent was to keep that talk below the radar of public scrutiny.

    However this was not the original intent of SDA education. The mission for our schools involved educating, informing etc, not sneaking around our doctrinal statement.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  28. Dear Laurie:

    I thank you for answering the questions I posed regarding Dr. Ness’s classes and their influence on your beliefs. I really appreciate the spirit you have demonstrated in your comments. If in fact Ness’s classes strengthened your belief in a literal six-day creation approximately 6,000 years ago, and in a universal Flood, I am very glad.

    Much has been made on this forum of the video clip from Ness’s lecture to the theology students. I am a bit surprised that no reference has been made to an article written by Dr. Ness in the Fall 2009 issue of Spectrum magazine, titled “Creation, Evolution, and Adventist Higher Education.” Spectrum is one of a number of magazines to which I subscribe, but as with many of my magazines, I don’t always get around to reading all the articles. When the controversy arose on this forum regarding Ness’s teachings, I thought of going back and actually reading the Ness article in Spectrum which I had earlier noticed. But not until this morning did I actually do so.

    After thoughtfully reading the article, a number of conclusions became clear to me regarding Ness’s personal beliefs on the creation/evolution debate:

    1. Ness clearly sees himself as a creationist. He believes there is no workable naturalistic model for the initial origin of life. He holds that belief in a Creator God as the One who originated life is far more sensible than to believe life just came about through evolutionary means.

    2. At the same time, Ness appears to see the possibility of some sort of compromise between evolutionary theory and the Genesis creation story, primarily through viewing the days of creation as allegorical. (Not all, it should be remembered, who call themselves creationists are in fact creationists in the true Biblical sense. Much of what currently poses as “progressive creationism” is in fact indistinguishable from theistic evolution.) At one point Ness writes:

    “Judging by the fact that many Jews who consider the creation days allegorical maintain Sabbath observance, such an argument (literal days as necessary to defend the Sabbath) might seem unnecessary. Sabbath observance is clearly rooted in the Decalogue; and, although reference is made to the days of creation in the fourth commandment, the seventh day can just as well be considered symbolic. What need is there for a literal seven day creation week if God ordains that the story be told as it is in Genesis and uses the story to tie in the Sabbath to His creative work? I would surely hope that if the days of creation do turn out to be indeterminate lengths of time, my faith in God’s Word would be strong enough that I would see the Sabbath just as binding” (Spectrum, Fall 2009, p. 46).

    Much time could be spent responding to the above suggestions, but if nothing else, they hardly offer support for Ness being a strong advocate of the literal days of creation and the affirmation of such by means of the Sabbath commandment.

    3. Ness views the Galileo controversy of centuries ago as primarily one of science versus Biblical interpretation, when in reality the best historical evidence indicates the Catholic cosmology which Galileo challenged was based more on Greek philosophy than on the Bible.

    4. At another point Ness seems to imply that Adventism’s historic belief in “progressive truth” should enable scientists and theologians in the church to consider such revisions of our creationist beliefs as accepting a symbolic understanding of the days in Genesis 1 (p. 46). It would seem that Ness accepts the definition of “progressive truth” offered by many contemporary so-called “progressive” Adventists–namely, that Inspiration is sufficiently malleable that it can be interpreted in numerous, even contradictory ways. For many reasons, arising from both Scripture and Ellen White, such an understanding of “progressive truth” is problematic.

    5. At another point Ness writes:

    “A number of individuals believe that only enough should be taught about evolution so that our students can thoroughly refute evolutionary theory. The problem with this latter opinion is that it assumes such a thorough refutation is possible” (p. 47).

    If nothing else, it would seem Ness is unaware of the considerable evidence against evolutionary theory that creation scientists have found. While few would argue with Ness’s contention that Adventist science students should understand evolutionary theory so as to interact intelligently with those who hold it, his apparent lack of confidence in the case many scientists have made against evolution would call into question his competence in being able to equip Adventist young people to rightly address these issues, irrespective of what his own beliefs might be.

    As a lifelong apologist for classic Adventist theology, I fully recognize the need to understand the arguments of those who deny the Adventist faith, and to be able to refute those arguments with Biblical, logical, and historical evidence. I am a regular reader of publications hostile to fundamental Adventism, and am thus thoroughly familiar with the numerous arguments certain ones routinely make against our faith. I am happy to say that in my interaction with such arguments, I have found them to be thoroughly deficient–on logical and historical grounds as well as Biblical ones.

    What is necessary in Adventist science classes is for our students to be exposed to relevant evidence both for and against the Biblical model of origins. But those who teach such classes must themselves be fully persuaded of the truthfulness of the Bible/Spirit of Prophecy model, so as to successfully build the faith of the young in the Biblical/Adventist worldview. I have seen this successfully done in classes at our Seminary on the issue of origins, and the result has been most rewarding.

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  29. From a comment over at Spectrum —

    ====================
    The issue is not what Ness believes or was teaching. The issue that many are rightly outraged over was taping and posting his tape ….

    Posted by: Darrell (not verified) | 03 November 2010 at 10:37
    ======================================================

    Darrell has stated the matter well – to that point.

    The real issues are clear. Is the teaching of evolutionism at an SDA school by an SDA professor (the worst form of infidelity according to a 3SG 90-91 source) of so little consequence that it actually sinks below the squabbling over a university lecture being taped by attendees? (Recall that a university lecture is not some kind of “counselling session covered by attorney client priviledge”)

    Here is the essential core principle that calls for stout hearted sytle-over-substance form-over-function liberal thinking.

    Let each one make their choice in that regard.

    In my opinion – it just doesn’t get any easier than this!

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  30. @ Pastor Paulson

    What is necessary in Adventist science classes is for our students to be exposed to relevant evidence both for and against the Biblical model of origins. But those who teach such classes must themselves be fully persuaded of the truthfulness of the Bible/Spirit of Prophecy model, so as to successfully build the faith of the young in the Biblical/Adventist worldview.

    As I have pointed out, and no one here has refuted, there isn’t a SHRED of physical evidence to support the Biblical model of a flood that covered every piece of dirt on this planet. In fact, OVERWHELMING evidence suggests otherwise. Why would you insist that we build the faith of young people by means of patently false reassurances?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  31. @Professor Kent: That’s a very strong statement, “There isn’t a SHRED of physical evidence to support the Biblical model of a flood that covered every piece of dirt on this planet.”

    What do you think of the following lines of evidence taken from “Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood” by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

    Evidence #1—Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents.
    We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.

    Evidence #2—Rapid burial of plants and animals.
    We find extensive fossil “graveyards” and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.

    Evidence #3—Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas.
    We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.

    Evidence #4—Sediment transported long distances.
    We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for “300 million years” water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global flood.

    Evidence #5—Rapid or no erosion between strata.
    We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any “missing” millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon—the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.

    Evidence #6—Many strata laid down in rapid succession.
    Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years,” while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.

    Don’t any of these count for at least a shred?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  32. For all of you who think this site and the information posted is not VITAL, you must not be parents. My son, a biology major, is a freshman at another SDA university and I have 2 more teens to follow in the next couple of years. I thank the Lord every day for this site and the people who are willing to put themselves out there for their sake. They are accomplishing their stated purpose which is to inform parents (and other church members) so that we can decide what to do about it and where to send our children. In my opinion, Ness has crossed the line. Playing devil’s advocate to teach a lesson is fine and dandy, but the lesson is LOST if the other side is not given equal billing.

    Professor Kent:
    I am particulary disturbed by most of your posts. The hostility and sarcasm you express are absolutely unnecessary. Do you not understand that WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON?!!! You can debate evolution/creation, short age/long age earth, local/global flood ad nauseum. This does not change my mind in the least.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  33. Evidence #1—Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents.
    We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.

    If we could show that there was no geological uplift subsequent to the fossils being formed, this would indeed show that water and/or sea levels were higher than they are today (and of course we know that the sea elevation has been in flux). The problem, as Sean pointed out, is that Everest has fossils at close to 29,000 feet. He states that it was impossible for the flood to attain this height. But if we want to use this argument, then we had better be consistent and state that the flood must have been over 29,000 feet in height.

    Evidence #2—Rapid burial of plants and animals.
    We find extensive fossil “graveyards” and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.

    Evidence for rapid burial hardly equates to a global flood. Trees were buried rapidly after Mt. St. Helens blew its top…but does that mean the eruption rapidly killed and buried plants and animals all over the globe?

    Evidence #3—Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas.
    We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.

    And all these layers were formed at the same time? Note that the extensive chalk beds don’t extend all the way to New Jersey or California (there is a reason they are named after Dover). Why is that? Why don’t we find that very same layer on top of Mt. Everest?

    Evidence #4—Sediment transported long distances.
    We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for “300 million years” water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global flood.

    We see sediments today traveling vast distances from floods along major rivers, including the Colorado River, Amazon River, and Nile River. Yet we have never had Amazon riverwater reach Arkansas–not in my lifetime, at least. Today, we even see wind-borne sidements from Africa blowing all the way across the Atlantic Ocean to the Caribbean Sea, where corals depend on the iron “out of Africa.” Does this mean that a single dust storm perpetually covers the entire globe today?

    Evidence #5—Rapid or no erosion between strata.
    We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any “missing” millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon—the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.

    What has this got to do with covering the entire planet? Would the layering be any different for a smaller flood?

    Evidence #6—Many strata laid down in rapid succession.
    Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years,” while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.

    I’d like to see the experiment that confirmed the impossibility of this bending under heat and pressure. Again, this has nothing to do with a geospatial hypothesis.

    I realize my answers don’t show much respect for these arguments, but the so-called “evidences” amount to nothing more than just so-so stories. Is this the best the Seventh-day Adventist Church can do in using science to defend a global flood? Does our theology really crumble if science fails to support a global flood that covered 100% of the earth?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  34. Let me clarify. I am a young earth creationist myself. I’m not a bad person. I believe in the very same theological teachings of the SDA Church that virtually all of you readers ascribe to. I would be ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED to find rock-solid evidence of a worldwide global flood. In fact, I’d give up my entire life savings if I believed someone had a real chance of collecting that evidence. But I am also compelled by honesty to admit, painfully, that there is nothing but contradictory evidence–especially in biological terms–for a flood that covered the entire earth. I don’t take delight in throwing this around. But I do take exception to those who take delight in accusing SDA biologists of underminding the Church’s fundamental beliefs when these good scientists honestly see the same dilemma I do. It’s not fair, it’s not charitable, and when conducted on the world wide web, it puts our Church in a position of public scorn and ridicule.

    By the way, I’m sorry I spelled “sediments” wrong in my prior post when I spoke of dust–a better term than “sediments”–being blown from Africa across the entire Atlantic Ocean.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  35. As evidenced from the above-cited Spectrum article and several posts here, plus a couple of personal encounters of my own, the proclamation, “But I’m a 6-day Creationist too, you know,” has become a suddenly popular device among some of our unabashedly long-chronology but not-quite-out-of-the-closet, at least in print, theistic Evo professors. Two of my best friends, PhDs in non-science, pulled it on me, in one month. The trick is to deploy it as a parting shot, so you don’t have the wit or time to determine whether those “days” are allegorical or literal. One friend hit me with it from the open window of his car as he was about to drive away. The other hit came along with a thank-you for my picking up the check for lunch. And say it amiably, pleasantly, disarmingly, whimsically.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  36. @Timothy Widmer:

    You have truncated the evidence to a 6 min clip. That’s even LESS context. Nice one.

    The truncation is due to an effort on our part to avoid even the appearance of copyright issues (even though this talk seems to fit well into the classification of a “live performance”). We would love to continue to present the entire clip (for obvious contextual reasons), but Dr. Ness remains resistant to that idea suggesting that he may be willing to put up this particular lecture, together with others, on a separate website… which would also work for us.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  37. @Professor Kent:

    Let me clarify. I am a young earth creationist myself.

    Who believes that Noah’s Flood was only worldwide “in effect”, not actual extent – i.e., that perhaps it was possible that land animals could have survived the Flood in some place that happened to escape the deluge. Oh, and that the massive worldwide very flat sedimentary deposits that show little to no weathering or bioturbation between layers as well as universal paleocurrent patterns, with no evidence of high mountain ranges, are not most reasonably explained by a true worldwide deluge…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  38. @ Wesley Kime

    As evidenced from the above-cited Spectrum article and several posts here, plus a couple of personal encounters of my own, the proclamation, “But I’m a 6-day Creationist too, you know,” has become a suddenly popular device among some of our unabashedly long-chronology but not-quite-out-of-the-closet, at least in print, theistic Evo professors.

    Are you accusing me of lying, Wesley? Do you really think you know with absolute certainty my beliefs, much less my heart? Because if you are calling me a liar, you have judged me wrong and shown disregard for Biblical instruction regarding the judgment of others.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  39. Who believes that Noah’s Flood was only worldwide “in effect”, not actual extent – i.e., that perhaps it was possible that land animals could have survived the Flood in some place that happened to escape the deluge. Oh, and that the massive worldwide very flat sedimentary deposits that show little to no weathering or bioturbation between layers as well as universal paleocurrent patterns, with no evidence of high mountain ranges, are not most reasonably explained by a true worldwide deluge…

    Now why are you accusing me of things I’ve never stated a position on?

    I believe it’s wrong to demand that “all” means “all” in some verses of Genesis 7 and 8 when in other verses of these very chapters it obviously cannot mean “all” (but I don’t object to those who really want to see it). The “double kol” argument lacks water, too. Nevertheless, I’ve been crystal clear that I am open to the possibility of a complete worldwide deluge. I certainly won’t accept it based on “overwhelming evidence” that does not exist, but I’m open to it because of my faith in a “Thus saith the Lord,” which you have repeatedly belittled (where is your charity?). I’m not a trained geologist and don’t know enough regarding the other “evidence” you bring up to make a firm position, and you have not seen me deny it (though I found your rationale based on paleocurrents bizarre, as tsunamis DO NOT move in a single orientation). But you know as well as I do that this “evidence” you keep throwing out would not look one iota different whether 99% of the earth was covered or 100% of the earth was covered. Why can’t you be honest about this? I have a problem with your lack of integrity.

    You believe in a worldwide deluge for one reason and one reason only: you believe Genesis requires it. Your insistence that your belief is based on empirical evidence is a load of bologne.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  40. Some may be inclined to “imagine” that Kent has been forthcoming on evidence that Genomes do not “evolve” into higher level genomes over millions of years of time, or that he has been forthcoming in defending the obvious Intelligent Design features seen in nature even by what Paul called non-bible aware “barbarians” in Romans 1, or that he has shown any inclination at all to “do the math” when it comes to critical thinking and finding evidence in favor the the text of scripture, or that he has insisted that the 7 day creation week of Gen 1:2 – 2:3 is the same as the Ex 20:8-11 literal 7 day week.

    That “imagination” will do fine as long as you do not read the posts he has provided on this website to the contrary. All of which is no that important – except to illustrate that there are various models for the points of view that will come here and argue strenuously for evolutionism. Not all of those doing it are themselves evolutionists in the strictest sense. Many simply support the claims of evolutionism whenever opportunity arrives.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  41. Now having seen the clips, I’d like to say that these quibble about the marsupials in Australia doesn’t make a bit of sense when you really think about it.

    How did the animals get to the ark?

    “Animals obeyed the command of God, while men were disobedient. Guided by holy angels, they ‘went in two and two unto Noah into the ark,’ and the clean beasts by sevens” (PP 98).

    “Angels were sent to collect from the forest and field the beasts which God had created. Angels went before these animals and they followed, two and two, male and female, and clean beasts by sevens” (1SP 72; 3SG 68).

    If the angels brought them to the ark, why couldn’t the angels take them back? Why assume that the marsupials had to just wonder down to Australia all by their lonesomes without any assistance?

    Thus, the marsupials could have gotten down to Australia pretty quickly, and other animals to wherever they reside today, within a fairly short time.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  42. Timothy Widmer says:
    November 7, 2010 You have truncated the evidence to a 6 min clip. That’s even LESS context. Nice one

    You posted on this web site when the video was full length, hopefully at that time you looked at the video before commenting on it. And now after considerable objection by a number of people from PUC, EducateTruth felt compelled to cut it back to a minimum.

    The “truth” is that PUC is ostensibly “in the business of informing and educating”. Had that been the sole goal in this case – the promotion of their lecture event on this web site would have been taken as free marketing and publicity. But in this particular case the content of the video itself IS the problem for PUC. Thus they apparently view it as a “plus” to have the discussion of that classroom event take place “sans the data” where objective unbiased observers could decide the matter for themselves from the firsthand evidence.

    All they have to do is contact EducateTruth saying that they are fine with having the video provided in its entirety (or provide an even better one if they have such a thing) with the assurance that the details speak for themselves and will put on display the stellar practices being employed at PUC.

    As we all know – there is no “original work or invention” or “trade secret”, nor any analysis at all of scientific data at risk by viewing the video. It is nothing more than a class discussion preceded by some sweeping claims for evolutionism – and no text for the references made to those claims. If they wanted the first hand data to be shown on this web site they could easily give approval. This is not the hard part.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  43. Angelina says:
    November 7, 2010 For all of you who think this site and the information posted is not VITAL, you must not be parents. My son, a biology major, is a freshman at another SDA university and I have 2 more teens to follow in the next couple of years. I thank the Lord every day for this site and the people who are willing to put themselves out there for their sake. They are accomplishing their stated purpose which is to inform parents (and other church members) so that we can decide what to do about it and where to send our children. In my opinion, Ness has crossed the line. Playing devil’s advocate to teach a lesson is fine and dandy, but the lesson is LOST if the other side is not given equal billing.

    Thank you for those encouraging words to the providers of this information. I agree with you completely.

    The PUC claim is that Ness was simply playing devil’s advocate – stating what he did not actually believe to be true. But the details in the video do not support that claim and Ness himself appears to deny it claiming that instead of telling the students what he does not believe to be true – he was telling them what he does believe to be true and urging them to find a solution in the form of some creative Bible interpretation and creative work with the writings of Ellen White. The video was very “instructive” in that regard.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  44. Seriously, Sean. How would the evidence you use for a worldwide flood that covers every scrap of land look any different if only 99% of the land was flooded, or 95%, or 90%, instead of 100%? Let’s discuss this. For the sake of discussion, let’s compare only two models: one for 100% water coverage, and one for 95% coverage.

    1 – How would you predict “the massive worldwide very flat sedimentary deposits that show little to no weathering or bioturbation between layers” differ if the world was 100% covered with water versus 95%? Would you expect there to be, say, 25% more weathering between the layers if the flood was at 95%? Would you expect, say, 15% more bioturbation between layers if there was 95% water coverage? Are there empirical data that could be drawn upon to support your unbiased a priori predictions? If you are making the claim that these data do indeed support the 100% coverage model, then please share with us this highly valuable evidence.

    2 – How would you predict the “universal paleocurrents” to be any different if the world was 100% covered with water versus 95%? Would you expect, say, 5% more of the currents to be north-south instead of east-west in the 95% model? If so, why? Are there, in fact, data available to test your unbiased a priori predictions? And if so, please share those precious data with us.

    3 – How would you predict the “evidence of high mountain ranges” to be any different if the world was 100% covered with water versus 95%? Would you expect, say, 40% greater elevation of pre-flood mountains in the 95% model? If so, why? Do we have actual measurements of pre-flood mountain heights to test your unbiased a priori predictions? If so, please share those data and your analyses with us.

    Let me say that I am totally open to seeing supportive evidence for a total worldwide flood if it can be produced. In fact, I would be extremely delighted for you to produce that evidence, and I mean this with all sincerity. So far, I’m not aware of any such analysis, but perhaps you are way ahead of the rest of us in your unpublished model construction and testing.

    In sum, I am concerned that you are insisting that the hypothesis of 100% water coverage is true without any possible means of falsifying your claim. Surely you would never accept a hypothesis that cannot be falsified (i.e., accepted on “blind faith), as you have written extensively on the topic. So, for our benefit, please describe how YOU would falsify the SDA hypothesis that the flood covered 100% of the earth’s surface. Doing so would help us better understand your demand that Dr. Brian Ness was morally obligated, as an SDA Church employee, to teach that the weight of evidence favors the traditional SDA interpretation of a worldwide flood.

    As Bob Ryan would say, inquiring minds want to know.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  45. Contrary to Bob Ryan’s wild-eyed assertions, I am indeed a Young Earth Creationist who leans very heavily toward a recent creation and a literal flood that destroyed most of it. I do NOT believe that genomes “evolve” into higher level genomes over millions of years of time. I have never, ever, stated in writing or verbally that these aspects of evolution are well supported or viable, and I have affirmed my YEC views over and over and over at this website. I am being slandered once again–which happens to be exactly what I have come to expect at this site. I can assure you that Bob has imagined my position because he apparently cannot fathom why an honest creationist would say, “wait a minute, all these claims of wonderful science that validates the Bible are more than a little exaggerated.”

    Frankly, I could care less whether any of you wish to believe there is overwhelming support for traditional Seventh-day Adventist beliefs. I would go my merry way if that was the only topic under discussion here. What really ticks me off, though, are the three demands that you folks make here and the way in which you gleefully enforce them.

    To be continued…

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  46. I have no problem with ET’s position that SDA views on these issues should be taught with respect, and evidence presented when it exists. I have become convinced that, in the recent past, there was a serious problem at La Sierra University. But as ET has further refined its position, it now demands three things: (1) that every employee of the Church believe in the traditional SDA viewpoints, not because of faith, but because of empirical evidence; (2) that every employee of the Church make clear, when discussing these issues, that the weight of evidence favors all interpretations held by the SDA Church; and (3) that every employee has an obligation to publicly support efforts to “expose” those individuals who fail to comply with the first two commands.

    The penalties for violating these three demands are severe: you will be publicly exposed and held up to ridicule by your Church family. Consider Dr. Clausen of the Geoscience Research Institute and Dr. Beitz of Southern Adventist University. These two individuals actually BELIEVE and TEACH the traditional SDA viewpoint, but were roundly criticized for violating demands #1 and #2 (Dr. Clausen), and demand #3 (Dr. Bietz). It’s unfortunate these two names were needlessly drawn into the public arena, where they could be tried and judged in the court of popular opinion. Very few of you had the courage to defend these individuals, so there is every reason to believe most of you sympathize with these three demands, which I find deplorable and uncharitable.

    And that is why I continue to challenge the “science” discussed at great length here. I believe the basis for claims #1 and #2 is completely and unequivocally distorted, which of course completely obliviates claim #3. I completely understand why my SDA biologist colleagues (whom I wish I knew more of) refuse to participate at this website, because they are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Very few of you are HONESTLY willing to consider the possibility that the case for science supporting your faith is grossly overstated, so of course they could never defend this position here. Someone needs to speak up on their behalf, and that is why I manage to irritate so many of you. It’s not because I’m defending evolution; it’s because I’m defending your faith and the right to cherish and share it.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  47. @ Bob Pickle

    If the angels brought them to the ark, why couldn’t the angels take them back? Why assume that the marsupials had to just wonder down to Australia all by their lonesomes without any assistance?

    I have no problem with your argument (I have always thought it to be plausible), but let’s then be honest about a few things:

    (1) The hypothesis of a global flood covering 100% of the earth cannot be falsified, because the creationist predictions from biogeography would not be distinguishable from those of evolutionary theory.

    (2) The problem of SO MANY species remains. Did God’s angels take 300+ plethodontid salamander species back to the New World, or did most of them evolve there in roughly 4000 years? Did they transport 170 endemic species of amphibians directly to the Caribbean Islands, some of which are volcanic and might have arisen post-flood, or did many of them evolve there (none of these 170 species occur outside of the Caribbean…and hopping there from the ark would take thousands of years).

    (3) Dr. Brian Ness’s concerns were trivial; why make such an enormous deal?

    (4) The intent of the global flood was much more than just to wipe out all human beings that weren’t on the ark. Humans did not occupy every square meter of land.

    (5) I was sent an email by a friend who states that one prominent SDA biologist at Southwestern Adventist University is open (though not in public) to animals surviving outside of the ark, probably on floating mats of vegetation. Would you object to this?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  48. @Aaron:

    Aaron–you state–“In our world you have to know both sides of any debate. How else can you really understand what you believe in?” Do you know how “authorities” are taught to discover a counterfit bill? They study only the TRUE bill, not the counterfit. Studying the counterfit will only confuse you–understand? Mr. Ness needs to use the Bible as his source or else leave the teaching to someone who can uphold God’s teaching.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  49. @Kristen: It is cut and dry Kristen. I don’t believe people are confused on purpose d/t the ‘new’ evidence. [edit] Stick with the bible and bible only and noone will be confused as to what happened. I am pretty sure people are believing what they want to believe.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  50. Dr Ness quoted, “As it stands now I have an open mind on the subject (and I would hope you and others could respect me for that). I would love to find more credible evidence to support the traditional view on the flood, unfortunately, at the moment, such evidence is difficult to find.”

    It would be so nice if all of our professors actually believed the Bible. I cannot respect someone who gets his paycheck from a Seventh Day Adventist institution; yet does not uphold the 28 beliefs as required. That also goes for whoever hired him. He really should in all honesty, work somewhere else thats more compatible with his beliefs.

    While God has given ample evidence for faith, He will never remove all excuse for unbelief. All who look for hooks to hang their doubts upon will find them. And those who refuse to accept and obey God’s word until every objection has been removed, and there is no longer an opportunity for doubt, will never come to the light…. {DD 11.3}

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  51. Some people appear to still be in great confusion over the issues.

    1. All SDA universities teach evolution in their science classes. They do not teach that it is the right answer for the doctrine on origins – but they explain it to students anyway.

    2. The video does not show Ness explaining what others think about evolutionism to the theology students. Rather it shows Ness making sweeping claims that science shows evolutionism to be true and then asking the theology students to come up with comments/questions/solutions.

    At no point is this a “show both sides of the science evidence” to theology students NOR is there any indication that theology students are now considered to be masters of science and are to be take the task of finding science evidence for creation as “Their theology homework for the week”.

    3. When the students in that video point out the contradiction between evolutionism’s claims and the Bible and even the Gospel – Ness does not argue that evolutionism is unproven, he argues that there needs to be more creative ways to read the Bible and certain statements from Ellen White.

    4. When asked the question – former GC president Paulsen said that SDA science professors should resign if they believe in evolutionism.

    5. When asked the question – Ellen White said it would be better for SDA parents not to send their students to Battle Creek at the time that BC science was pantheistic.

    6. Our science professors SHOULD be going to the biology department with science ANSWERs not with science puzzles taken as “revealed truth” demanding that the Bible be bent to fit evolutionism.

    We saw a great example of the positive side of this at the Yes Creation event that Standish conducted at the GC session in Atlanta.

    The PUC students should question why Ariel Roth was not invited or Standish — someone actually working on Answers.

    7. The PUC religion students should be asking “where is the forum on I.D. showing that opposition to I.D is a uniquely and distinctively atheist POV”.

    The PUC theology students should be asking “where is the seminar showing the list of current SDA doctrines that would need to be decontructed to marry the Bible to evolutionism”?

    The PUC theology students should be asking – “Where is the seminar explaining the exegetical connection between the literal 7 day week of Ex 20:8-11 and Gen 1:2-2:3”?

    The PUC theology students should be asking “Why is the science department coming to us with evolution problems in science instead of research, critical thinking and answers in science”?

    Does the PUC science department really “believe” that the theology students are the ones to find the science answers???

    [edit unnecessarily antagonistic]

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  52. 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).

    In this class, Evolution was NOT taught as a view that we should accept. I cannot speak particularly for what is presented in the other classes because I did not take them. However, 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.

    In my two science courses at PUC I was only challenged to think about science issues a little more…like with the “Red shifts” of stars and how people use that in dating the stars (I don’t think that challenged my faith though…the stars could seem old just because God made them that way). 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. The Bible tells me, “the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the WHOLE HEAVEN were covered. Fifteen cubits did the waters prevail and THE MOUNTAINS were covered” (Gen. 7:19,20). I checked, and my Bible tells me the entire earth was covered. The Bible makes a specific record that the ark “rested in the seventh month…upon the mountains of Ararat…in the tenth month, on the first day of the month [the Bible is giving very specific details], were the tops of the mountains seen” (Gen. 8:4,5). Mt. Ararat’s peak is 16,854 ft above sea level. That is about 2/3’s of the height of Everest. Ararat was entirely covered. Those in the Ark could not see any part of those mountian tops. And trusting the entire accuracy and reliability of my Bible, I would say Everest was covered too. This was NOT a local flood according to the Bible. If God was only sending a local flood, He would have told Noah to MOVE, not to build an Ark. Anyway, that was my only contention with what I heard from Dr. Ness’ class.

    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. However, I do not believe we can ever take the approach which would lessen the clear thrust of God’s word. We must be very careful about that. If anything has to give for me, I would say, the scientific community has to give, not my Bible. We have Divine revelation as an inspired interpreter of every piece of natural evidence we may find. It “did not come in old times by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21). Therefore I choose to, and believe we all must, rest our faith strictly upon the word of God. We have a definite advantage over the entire world. They do not have a divine interpreter for them as they look at natural things. WE do, however, and because of God’s divine insights we may rightly interpret the things of nature–granted that we HEED the Biblical message.

    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. However, wrong ideas about very clearly stated Bible truths (based on suggestions from secular world views), if indulged and perpetuated, will surely be a cause of doubt towards the innerancy of the inspired word. And if doubt is insinuated, souls will lose their faith in the credibility of the inspired sentences. And the loss of their childlike faith will lead to sin and it’s sure end, which is death. Satan is the only one who leads men into doubts about God’s word, because he wants to lead us into sin and perdition.

    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. Why don’t we help our professors to take hold of our message entirely with good reasons! (some may be malicious in their intent to destroy faith in God’s word. some may be hardened in error for which they will not be willing to repent. But, I believe there are others who are more honest and need help to overcome their struggles. They have faith, but they also have some areas of struggle, which has weakened their faith in the divinely inspired records.)

    Let’s do what we can for everyone, and see what can come from it. If our faith cannot then be sustained by such teachers, then perhaps it is best they do not talk on such matters as will cause them to contradict the holy Scriptures (by evidence purported from the secularly biased world). We need men to inspire tenacious faith in the word of God from every area of study offered…be it the Natural sciences or whatever else. In the final Crises we may only stand by our firm faith in the inspired record–the Bible.

    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? 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. We have good minds about this. If our professors are willing, if they really want to hear of better evidence for our positions, THEN why doesn’t our church organize some conventions on these matters. If professors do not genuinely want to hear of these things, if they’d rather present doubtful theories to our students, then perhaps they should not be presenting in our classrooms. Their welcome to be in our church (granted they still love our faith), but to take a position where they do not teach things contrary to the Biblical faith…in a way that would intentionally undermine people’s faith. We can talk about of necessary issues. But let us not cause doubts. Find reasons for faith!!! not doubt.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  53. Just a quick observation on one statement made by our esteemed Dr. Ness to the effect that he believes that “truth is progressive.” This is a dangerous statement to make without explanation. If you believe that the old moral and Bible-based truths will become more and more “true” with time, then excellent thinking that will stand the test of “science-so-called.” BUT, if you believe, as it seems some of those involved in the above discussion do, that what was or seemed to be true in Bible times, by the Biblical record, and by the seeming support of the Spirit of Prophecy can be replaced as truth or shown to be in error, or somehow “undermined” by modern scientific “truth,” THEN you enter into such seriously dangerous ground as to be life threatening. This is the same boggy ground walked by “situation ethics.” Basically saying that you cannot accept the 10 Commandments as written, but must modify them according to the dictates of your PERSONAL evaluation of the situation. This got Adam and Eve into trouble and it will do as bad or worse for you and me.

    Dr. Ness’s unwillingness to make a clear, consise, Bible, SOP and voted SDA Doctrinally supported statement of his PERSONAL beliefs and to submit a short apology for the confusion caused by his improper organization of a presentation on the debated subject in the alotted time, makes it seem as though he most likely holds personal views which do not come into harmony with the STRONG current stand by the leadership of the SDA Denomination clearly demonstrated at the Atlanta GC and “stamped” with the clear approval and support of our current GC Pres. Pastor Ted Wilson.

    Something like this:
    1. I apologize for the lack of clarity on vital issues of creationism made by the time constraints of my presentation and my lack of organization for a larger audience.
    2. I personally believe in a literal contiguous 7, 24 hour, days of creation, a literal world-wide flood of Biblical proportions and agree with the SOP and SDA doctrinal support of such beliefs.
    3. I will strive, as a dedicated educator in the SDA parochial school system to present clearly our beliefs on these issues and my support for those beliefs and teachings.
    4. I submit that science has yet to catch up with Inspiration and that I personally support the inspiration of the Bible and SOP over the current teachings in the different fields of science that may seem to disagree or undermine the veracity of the Inspired sources of SDA Belief.

    If Dr. Ness had the courage to make things clear and unambiguous in such a manner, then we would not be having this long and often tedious discussion. I’m afraid that it seems to do so would violate his personal beliefs, sad to say.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  54. “You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free” – John 8.

    Jesus said “sanctify them in Thy Truth Thy Word is Truth”. John 17

    God’s Word says “Six days you shall labor…for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE” Ex 20:8-11.

    That is “the truth”. The facts are that Ness appears to believe that what he is telling students in that 2010 lecture “is true”. So far no one has posted anything to the contrary. This detail keeps getting skipped by some of those in support of Ness.

    As Danny points out – you do not force a student to choose to believe the Bible when it comes to the doctrine on origins, or to believe Adventist doctrine in that regard. Let each person choose for themselves.

    However we do not siphon off tithe and gifts dollars away from our mission to spread the Gospel – and invest them in SDA universities simply because we think SDAs are better at calculus or biology than non-SDAs. That was never our mission or value when diverting Gospel evangelism funds toward Christian education at the university and college level. Neither did we create them as match-making or marriage institutions.

    SDA teaching institutions are not “Undecided” on SDA doctrine but rather decidedly promoting it.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  55. @Benjamin Burkhardt:

    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.

    This is not some minor point. The local Flood idea opens the door, and essentially requires, the intelligent mind to interpret the geologic column and fossil records as being the records of vast periods of time of Earth’s history. It is an argument that is directly in support of the idea that life has existed and evolved on this planet far longer than the SDA belief that all life on Earth is very young and that death did not exist here, for any sentient form of life, until the Fall of man.

    Dr. Ness may not consciously reality it, but his teaching on this particular topic of a local vs. a worldwide Flood is a big problem for an SDA institution like PUC.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  56. Regarding Professor Ness an Oct 2009 talk listed on the PUC web site.

    Had I attended this devotional talk by Ness in let’s say 2004, and someone had asked me what I thought of it – I might well have said that he did a good job of holding the student’s attention and of presenting a positive focus on the Sabbath even though he made several blunders in the area of the text of scripture. I would have said that since PUC does not teach evolution as the right answer for origins – he must not be a Theistic Evolutionist so these were just “curious mistakes” from someone focused on science not paying close attention to the text of scripture.

    Certainly all will agree even now that no student would have heard that 2009 lecture and come away thinking “well then I guess evolutionism is true and creationism is wrong after all”.

    However Listening to that 2009 talk by Ness after being informed by his recent 2010 lecture to the theology students at PUC – makes it clear that those apparent “blunders” were in fact no blunders it all. They were well crafted nudges toward an unthinkable goal “down the road”.

    In this audio clip

    1. Ness first gets the students to think of themselves as “theists” vs atheists. The idea is to position them to one day think of “theistic evolutionists” as a form of creationist.

    2. Ness then hammers abiogensis in the same fashion that both real Bible creationists and theistic evolutionists would do. So the listener is disarmed.

    3. Ness suggest that pure evolutionism and pure creationism are “two extremes” and that nobody is really at those extremes.

    4. He crafts ‘the Bible creation story’ as one of many stories – preparing the groundwork for describing the Bible “account” as simply another “creation myth”.

    5. He suggests that “physics” was created on day 1. Physics was “created” according to Big Bang cosmologists during the Big Bang. So the code here is that day 1 is not a real day 1 but is billions of years during the time of the Big Bang this is our next clue that he is not taking this “story” as literally true.

    6. The Bible says that on day 4 God created “two great lights” but Ness states that the stars were created on day 4 to emphasize the non-literal “story” aspect. He subtly introduces some details on day 4 about what times during the day that the moon and a few stars might appear – to argue the case that you should distance yourself from the details in the Bible otherwise the ‘story’ does not make sense and is confusing.

    7. He offhandedly suggests that Thursday probably lasted longer than one day.

    8. Ness carefully deletes “evening and morning were the nth day” replacing that language with “Sunday”, “Monday” because he cannot explain that level of “detail” and still shoehorn this story into theistic evolutionism.

    9. Ness artfully re-frames the Bible account into a story form that both the T.E and the Creationist might accept.

    In short Ness was setting the students up for acceptance of the Bible account as no more than a “story” that could then have details deleted to marry it with evolution. This is the eisegetical basis for the most common form of Theistic evolutionism among Christians.

    Some might call this a “candied Bible” presentation with well crafted tactics that would ultimately allow a downsized Bible to be married to evolutionism and yet walk away calling yourself a “creationist” or a Believer in God as “Creator”.

    But it was well done such that the audio tape by itself would not raise much interest — until you heard the 2010 class discussion with the PUC theology department. (Which of course is not likely to be the comprehensive sum total of all that Ness has done in this area.)

    Notice that at no point have I claimed that Ness is not a nice person or that his students do not like him or that theistic evolutionists are not Christians.

    “Caveat Emptor” my friends.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  57. What about Dr. Chadwick, at Southwestern AU in Texas? He holds our views.

    Let him come here and tell us what he believes. Then you can ask him whether geological evidence can distinguish between a flood covering 95% versus 100% of the planet. You can ask him about the problems of biogeography. You can ask him whether animals might have survived on floating mats of vegetation.

    I’m sorry to disappoint you, but you won’t find him returning here to answer these questions. He lacks the courage to face a highly judgmental audience that he knows has very little understanding of science and tolerance of the many problems he knows exist. He is also afraid to contradict Sean Pitman in public.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  58. Hi Shane and Sean and everyone else,

    I am on your mailing list because I agree with you that the issue of what is being taught in our schools is important and that the church has a responsibility to it’s constituents and most importantly to God, to present the truth of the Bible, which includes a recent, literal 7 day Creation week. When I first started monitoring your site I appreciated your zealous defence of that truth.

    I do not personally know Prof. Ness, but I do know professors who have been similarly asked to present the counter arguments to our faith. Just because he did so without offering the balance of his faith in that specific lecture doesn’t mean that balance does not exist. In fact, if he presents a lecture like that, who is to say that he doesn’t spend the next 3 weeks explaining counter evidence. Also worthy of consideration is the reality the Ellen White tells us specifically that it will be impossible for us to remove every reason for doubt in the voracity of Scripture. I think we would be wise to be cautious about attempting to get rid of every professor who admits that he/she cannot reconcile all of the “evidence” of science with our fundamental beliefs, particularly when they state publically that they believe the truths of the Bible though they cannot prove them scientifically. We must remember that scientific method is a human creation and that the information gathered by humans using it may not always produce sound “evidence” even if done in the most rigerous and genuine attempts at discovering truth.

    Having attended Adventist schools all my life this is an issue dear to my heart and I have personally seen both professors who intentionally attempt to challenge and destroy the tenants of our faith and Bible believing professors vilified for presenting the challenges the world has for our faith in a genuinely contienscious manner that does not discount the truths of the Bible. While I agree that the church has a responsibility to address the former, I am afraid that your site is moving in a direction that is more akin to a witch hunt than a loving zealousness for the Truth of the Bible.

    I mention this because I believe that there is a right and wrong way to go about defending the truths of the Bible. There is a way to do so in accordance with counsel given in Matt. 18 and in the light of Rom. 12:9; John 13:34-35; Gal. 5:13; 1 Cor. 13; Prov. 13:10 & 18:6; Phil. 2:13-14. The counsel of Prov. 10:12 says, “Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all sins.” As I have watched this site evolve (no pun intended) and the vitriol and venom of both sides increase, I have become increasingly vexed. If we are to be known as Christ’s disciples, “if we have love, one for another” and “to in honor give preference to one another” I am afraid for us all.

    Yes, we have a responsibility to rebuke sin in love, but this site seems more and more about exposing sin and insiting argument and strife than it does about reminding people of a loving Creator who made us and made this incredible world for us to inhabit. Having and promoting the truth is not all that matters, “this you ought to have done”, while not leaving the love that covers sin undone. I would question, who set us up as judges of the church and her institutions, to expose her flaws and failings? Are we not called to a truth that transforms our mode discourse as well as our intellect and comprehension?

    Shane and Sean, I don’t mean to single you out as I know this has been far from one sided. I appeal to you all, where is the love of Christ in this discussion? Where is that which unites and builds up the body of Christ? I urge you to consider that this is a public site and that is open to the world to see. Is this the kind of interaction that would attract the world to Christ or would we be seen as just another bunch of people arguing over words?

    Have these matters been brought to the Church’s attention? Is our calling to sit in judgment of the Church and it’s institutions? Is it our duty to fight to eradicate from her everyone who does not teach the way we think they ought or is that the responibility of those to whom God has given the incredible burden and responsibility of guarding the flock? I’m not saying that we should be silent, but we are also not to sit as judge and jury if God has not given us that position and authority.

    I pray that God will give us the wisdom to know how to address these issues in a manner worthy of princes and priests and joint heirs with Christ.

    Your’s in Christ,
    Wm.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  59. The local Flood idea opens the door, and essentially requires, the intelligent mind to interpret the geologic column and fossil records as being the records of vast periods of time of Earth’s history. It is an argument that is directly in support of the idea that life has existed and evolved on this planet far longer than the SDA belief that all life on Earth is very young and that death did not exist here, for any sentient form of life, until the Fall of man.

    This, folks, is the crux of the problem. As Dr. Pitman has finally conceded, we MUST believe in a global food that covers every scrap of land, not because the evidence supports it, but because your faith would crumble without it. This is no trivial issue. If only 95% of the earth was covered, then life on this earth cannot be young and death existed before the fall of man.

    But let me remind you: blind faith is as useless as belief in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We cannot, as a Church, survive on blind faith. Unless our belief in a global flood is based on falsifiable scientific evidence, we have no hope whatsoever in a bright future. Please encourage and pray for Dr. Pitman or Dr. Chadwick to produce the definitive evidence we apparently lack but desperately require to sustain our beliefs.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  60. @Professor Kent:

    This, folks, is the crux of the problem. As Dr. Pitman has finally conceded, we MUST believe in a global food that covers every scrap of land, not because the evidence supports it, but because your faith would crumble without it. This is no trivial issue. If only 95% of the earth was covered, then life on this earth cannot be young and death existed before the fall of man.

    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.

    But let me remind you: blind faith is as useless as belief in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We cannot, as a Church, survive on blind faith. Unless our belief in a global flood is based on falsifiable scientific evidence, we have no hope whatsoever in a bright future. Please encourage and pray for Dr. Pitman or Dr. Chadwick to produce the definitive evidence we apparently lack but desperately require to sustain our beliefs.

    If you do see the vast weight of scientic evidence in clear falsification of those elements of the Biblical narriative that can be tested and potentially falsified, upon what basis do you rest your “faith”? – beyond some inner feeling of truth?

    I’m sorry Prof. Kent, but there are those of us who do in fact see the empirical evidence as strongly favoring the biblical account of origins and therefore overall biblical credibility with regard to those metaphysical statements that cannot be directly tested or falsified. Faith that stands despite everything the empirical evidence clearly says doesn’t really help the candid mind to gain a solid hope in the future…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  61. 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

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  62. @William:

    I do not personally know Prof. Ness, but I do know professors who have been similarly asked to present the counter arguments to our faith. Just because he did so without offering the balance of his faith in that specific lecture doesn’t mean that balance does not exist. In fact, if he presents a lecture like that, who is to say that he doesn’t spend the next 3 weeks explaining counter evidence.

    Because, he has spent many years questioning the literal nature of the worldwide Flood in his classes. A student who took classes from him between 2004-2006 noted that he was suggesting the validity of the local Flood concept back then – putting questions in student’s minds regarding the validity of the global Flood concept…

    http://www.educatetruth.com/media/puc-professor-the-noachian-flood-was-just-a-local-flood/comment-page-2/#comment-21654

    Dr. Ness has admitted to personally questioning the reality of the global Flood concept in this very forum. Just read his own comments for yourself in this thread. He evidently thinks of the creation week in symbolic terms or at least does not think that all life was necessarily produced during a single literal week of time. After all, the fossil record is a record of death – death that Dr. Ness does not think was necessarily the result of the global Noachian Flood, but could have taken place over vast eons of time…

    I don’t know about you, but this is not a minor issue. This is essentially the same thing that the science professors at LSU are teaching their students. Is this what you want our professors in our own schools teaching our young people? That the SDA position on a global Flood is not really tenable? – that there are more valid options to interpret the Bible on this topic than that suggested by the SDA Church?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  63. William says:

    I do not personally know Prof. Ness, but I do know professors who have been similarly asked to present the counter arguments to our faith. Just because he did so without offering the balance of his faith in that specific lecture doesn’t mean that balance does not exist. In fact, if he presents a lecture like that, who is to say that he doesn’t spend the next 3 weeks explaining counter evidence. Also worthy of consideration is the reality the Ellen White tells us specifically that it will be impossible for us to remove every reason for doubt in the voracity of Scripture. I think we would be wise to be cautious about attempting to get rid of every professor who admits that he/she cannot reconcile all of the “evidence” of science with our fundamental beliefs, particularly when they state publically that they believe the truths of the Bible though they cannot prove them scientifically.

    This is actually a pretty simple matter. PUC has stated that Ness was not presenting what he knew to be true – but rather was playing a kind of devil’s advocate with the Theology department.

    The wrench in that argument comes from Ness himself. He does not state that he was presenting claims for science that he felt were wrong or flawed. Not even in his comments here.

    In the discussion on the video he leads the students to look for “bible bending” solutions to the sweeping claims for evolution that he starts with. Furthermore his posts here are consistent with that model in that he claims to stand behind his claims in that video. Not only does he appear to oppose the origins doctrine but he also opposes the Bible teaching regarding a world wide flood.

    Certainly we may have many church members here or there who question one or the other of those doctrines – but we generally don’t ask them to teach those doubts in our universities.

    The point here is that it is highly doubtful that a theology student setting is the one where you present challenges from science and then incourage the students to come up with science solutions in the first place. One has to wonder what the thinking was there in the first place.

    In the video they clearly appeared to be trying to get the theology students to come up with “creative bible solutions” and possibly solutions involving some creative reading of Ellen White’s material.

    All very odd.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  64. I have not yet listened to the entire lecture by Ness. However, any lecture in an SDA educational facility must emphasize unequivocally the basic tenets of our faith with no reservation whatsoever. If an instructor can’t subscribe fully to the tenets of Adventism and teach them publicly, whether it be in science or religion or any other subject, it is time for him to look for other employment.

    Watering down our basic beliefs in any way is subversive and unworthy of honest persons. Having said that I have to listen to Ness’s lecture to draw any specific conclusions about his stance.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  65. I have said as much as I have the time or need to say on defense of myself. In spite of my own acknowledgement that I support the church’s stand on origins as outlined in fundamental belief #6 (of course, not said in so many words) and the repeated testimony of those who know me, you persist in statments such as that above. In light of such a judgemental spirit I must respectfully withdraw from further communications concerning this issue

    A great number of our SDA evolutionist friends have stated that they to believe in Fundamental Belief #6 because they believe it allows some wiggle room such that evolutionism can be inserted. To some degree Fritz Guy (the one who claims to have helped edit that statement “at some level”) claims the same thing, though he insists that evolution is correct.

    The only thing that is being question here is whether or not you believe in a literal 7 day creation week less than 10,000 years ago. And the only reason that is even a question is that your statements on that video make it appear that this is not your position. It also appears from the video that you are presenting what you believe to be true – not what you believe to be fiction.

    Your “last statement here” was a great place to claim that you believe in a literal 7 day creation week less than 10,000 years ago and a global flood – because these are the only “details” where you have even been remotely questioned.

    instead of that you bring up the following side issues never questioned here –

    Byran Ness said:

    Of course, it would be difficult for you to judge me on my actions unless you spent some time in my classroom, my church or my home. By the same token, it would be unfair for me to judge your motives, personal beliefs or relationship with God.

    The details at issue here could not be an simpler and yet the PUC posts consistently want to make the issue about Ness’ relationship to God that could only be known by his Church or home.

    I find the logic at that point to be illusive.

    Why not deal with the actual question that was raised instead of going to those non-issues? It is more than a little puzzling.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  66. I find it quite disheartening to see that 3 highly educated people, 2 of which were Adventist educated, have taken there education and created this webpage to attack our schools. Do you not have something else better to do with your time? You spend a lot of time typing and hiding behind a blog instead of maybe helping those that need help in the world and spreading the christian message to those that don’t know about it. That one of the things Jesus told us to do right? Not fight between ourselves?

    I graduated from PUC…took some biology classes and I can say that I appreciate the fact that we get both sides of the story. I want to know the facts for both evolution AND creation. Through out all my education from LLA to PUC they presented both sides…Darwinism/Evolution and Creation. This gives us all a knowledge of the issues that are out there regarding it.

    There are two reasons I’m glad that this was done in my education:
    1) So I do know both sides. I…like all the world…want to be informed. I think its naive to think that teaching just one thing and everyone will believe it will work. Look at the world of media…

    2) If someone wants to have a discussion on creation vs evolution i now know both sides and can craft my arguments for the SDA church and creation accordingly as that is what I believe. You have to be informed before you can fight and you have to be informed before you can educate…thus why we go to school.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  67. @PUC Alum:

    There are two reasons I’m glad that this was done in my education:
    1) So I do know both sides. I…like all the world…want to be informed. I think its naive to think that teaching just one thing and everyone will believe it will work. Look at the world of media…

    That’s just it… Dr. Ness does not (and evidently has not for many years) presented “both sides” of the argument regarding the worldwide Noachian Flood. He consistently presents, according to his current and former students, the evidence for a local Flood in the Black Sea area some 4,500 years ago and then tells his students that there is no reasonable scientific evidence for a worldwide Flood as an explanation for the geologic column and fossil record. He then tries to show how both the Bible and Mrs. White can be re-interpreted in order to allow for a local or regional Flood instead of a worldwide Flood.

    Like it or not, that’s Dr. Ness’s perspective and that’s what he teaches – not both sides of the story much less the favoring of the SDA perspective on a worldwide Noachian Flood…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  68. http://www.educatetruth.com/media/puc-professor-the-noachian-flood-was-just-a-local-flood/comment-page-1/#comment-21230

    Bryan Ness says:
    November 2, 2010

    So much for being able to have an honest discussion. I have been concerned already about Educate Truth’s approach to these things. Ask anyone who knows me and they will say I am a strong supporter of Adventism. This “lecture” was an attempt to bring out the issues facing the church, and I in no way have ever criticized anyone for believing as they choose to believe. I respect those who believe in a literal Genesis flood, but I also have to be honest about the scientific difficulties with such a belief. I guess what Educate Truth wants it’s rigid doctrinal adherence rather than a frank discussion of what the real issues are.

    I thank you for expressing respect for our view in a literal 7 day creation week less than 10,000 years ago and for respecting our view on a global flood.

    I on the other hand respect your rights as an individual to differ with us on those subjects. We all have free will and that needs to be respected.

    I believe you are right when you accuse us of promoting “rigid doctrinal adherence” but only “in some contexts”.

    Bryan Ness said
    I am deeply, deeply disappointed and I apologize to all lay people who may believe what Educate Truth seems to imply about my attitude toward the laity in our church.

    From everything posted and seen on this web site you have shown a great deal of respect for the laity and the attitudes of the laity.

    Bryan Ness said
    I strongly support the views of the lay members of our church and feel no need to shake their faith. I am an educator and must at the very least state where the issues lie

    I agree that as an educator you are in fact constrained by integrity to state what you see as the real issues – to state what you know to be the facts.

    Bryan Ness
    http://www.educatetruth.com/media/puc-professor-the-noachian-flood-was-just-a-local-flood/comment-page-1/#comment-21234

    Bryan Ness says:
    November 2, 2010
    Sean,
    I wish it were all as simple as you present. I do not have my package of beliefs neatly packaged . . . O that I could. As for my beliefs on the Noachian flood:
    1) What I personally believe is really none of your business or the business of church leaders,

    2) I gave no indication in my “lecture” as to what my personal beliefs on the subject are, and

    3) for someone to openly “slander” me (which you come close to doing) is hardly Christian, Christ-like or even decent.

    Just to set the record straight on the flood issue.

    I view truth as progressive, as does EGW, last time I checked. Although I may favor a wordld-wide flood model, I must recognize that past interpretations of the Bible are not the last word.

    As it stands now I have an open mind on the subject (and I would hope you and others could respect me for that). I would love to find more credible evidence to support the traditional view on the flood, unfortunately, at the moment, such evidence is difficult to find.

    I do not advocate putting human reason above God’s Word, but neither am I willing to simply assume that all past Biblical interpretations are correct beyond all revision. Surely such a way of looking at the Bible is valid, or are you saying that on certain beliefs our dogma is sealed and any suggestion of alternatives is heresy?

    You have identified the correct issues in your points above.

    1. Is it anyone’s business what one of our educators thinks regarding the 7 day creation week less than 10,000 years ago and the global flood. That is a good question to be resolved in a number of cases.

    2. Is it wrong for an educator to hold beliefs contrary to our existing doctrines. Where do you draw the line?

    3. Is the “rigid doctrinal adherence” (to quote you) that is being promoted by EducateTruth regarding a literal 7 day creation week less than 10,000 years ago and a real world wide flood really applicable to the case of science teachers in our colleges and universities or is this aspect of personal choice something we need to keep at a “hands off” distance to let each one be fully convinced in their own mind on these points no matter their position in our institutions.

    You raised these points and they are in fact that ones that the PUC posts should have been addressing.

    But you are incorrect if you think that this thinking on your part is not reflected in the direction you took in the video. You appear to be consistent to a fault my friend. Which is a good thing for an educator because it means that are teaching what you believe to be true.

    But it can hardly be argued that the idea of a literal 7 day creation week less than 10,000 years ago and a real world wide flood are something foreign to our doctrinal statements (especially after this upcoming revision of FB #6) – and the “Affirmation of Creation” vote by the exec committee even prior to the GC session in Altanta was a good indicator that the world church of Seventh-day Adventists has also been very “consistent” on these doctrines as well.

    It appears that you did start out to address the very key issues that were brought up regarding that video lecture in your first two posts here.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  69. @Sean Pitman:

    I see what you’re saying but everyone else teaches about Creation. All religion teachers and etc. Very few of them talk about Evolution and that side of the story. They leave it up to the scientists to do this. At least thats what I’ve see in my education.

    So maybe its more of a flaw in the curriculum of the schools as a whole and how things are orchestrated in teachings. Maybe you have the religion teacher speak on both sides and the science teacher teach on both sides to help clarify things. I don’t really know as I’m not someone that deals with that. But you can’t crucify one teacher for teaching the one side that you don’t particularly agree with especially when he was ASKED by the religion department to speak specifically on that topic and take that line. So maybe I just contradicted myself a little bit…maybe the teachers actually are attempting to show both sides correctly and everyone here is blowing things out of proportion. I don’t know…classes are a quarter long and are meant to build on each other. We weren’t there and it would seem that you are possibly taking one class out of 20 and taking it out of context.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  70. As a student at PUC I am very hapy that my science professors have the integriity to not publicly criticize pastors, doctorss and other teachers on a public website. I respect them. I learned a lot about Seventh-Day Adventists here at PUC. Most seem to be nice people. But this website has finally convinced me that SDAs are a bunch of hypocritcal, bickering jerks who I don’t ever want to associate with again. If this is what religion dioes to so-called Christians who cliam to love each other I find it hard to believe there really is a god of love.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  71. I was a Biology major at PUC long before said professor arrived on the scene. I graduated from PUC, but I would not encourage my kids to go there now. The reasons are many.

    None of our professors would have ever made a statement that even implied that the flood was only a local event or that there was no scientific evidence for a world wide flood. How did someone so ignorant get a job at a SDA college? There was plenty of evidence for the flood 40 years ago when I was there. There is even more now. The problem continues to be that these professors have more faith in “science” than they do the inspired word of God. Anything that contradicts God’s word can’t be true science. If one starts from that premise, they won’t fall into these traps.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  72. @Sean who 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 must disagree with you on this, Sean. You are, in fact, presenting a false dilemma. Perhaps this is why Professor Kent has been hammering you so hard.

    If, as far as I can understand it, the weight of evidence does not support the biblical account, I can still choose to believe the Bible as a final arbiter of truth and make the prediction, based on (informed) faith, that better understanding/more research will eventually support the biblical record.

    This is, in fact the kind of position Dr. Leonard Brand takes, and he is a strong proponent of creation by divine fiat in six literal days and a global flood at the time of Noah. And he is no light-weight in science either, having published material in peer-reviewed journals, as you know.
    Usually he refers to “interpretation,” rather than evidence, as in this statement, in the context of what philosophy of science we choose to accept: “That’s why we’re considering a biblical model of short-age geology even though much of the modern geological interpretation points to millions of years of earth history.” (From Beginnings: Are Science and Scripture Partners in the Search for Origins? p. 147)

    The way you have worded your statement, Sean, all the evidence of the Bible being true would go down the drain for an individual if that individual could not understand the weight of the physical evidence to be in favor of the global nature of the Noachian flood. (That is, in fact, what has happened to many, but I believe that both their faith and their scientific understanding were weak. A stronger faith can hold up even when scientific understanding is weak.)

    I agree with you that our Creator God does not ask us to believe without evidence on which to base our belief. However, once He has demonstrated His trustworthiness to us, He will often ask us to step out in pure faith — a faith that is not “blind” because we know Whom we trust, but a faith that is based on absolutely no evidence other than His Word. That’s what He expected of Noah. There was no evidence whatsoever that what God said was true. It was against all the laws of nature. But Noah believed, and it was counted as righteousness. And this faith preserved him from a very real, overwhelming disaster, namely the global flood.

    Insisting that only those who are convinced that the physical evidence is in favor of the biblical account are qualified teachers for our schools is an extremist position that lessens your credibility. I do hope you will clarify to say that that is not, indeed, what you mean. I also trust that your experience with our Creator God is strong enough that you can trust Him when the evidence does not seem support His Word. For you can be assured, that if you have not met that test in the past, you will meet it in the future.

    I like the way Leonard Brand describes the interaction between science and faith, with each informing the other. Among other things, when the Bible speaks specifically to points where today’s science sees the weight of evidence for a contrary position, he makes scientific predictions, based on his (informed) faith, that further study will demonstrate to be true, because the predictions are necessitated by the biblical statements.

    It is not either science OR faith, but science AND faith, with true science being always in harmony with an accurate interpretation of Scripture.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  73. Thank you Ben and William for reminding us to maintain a loving attitude about this whole issue. We can go back and forth all day long about science vs. theology and how they do or do not support one another, but if we forget to love and respect each other, our efforts are lost. “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.” 1 Corinthians 13: 1,2 While I’m trying to keep an open mind about this site (only fair, since I’m asking for an open mind regarding Dr. Ness), I am seeing it more and more as a witch hunt. Whether the original intent or not, I believe this argument is hurting much more than helping our church.

    I am especially disturbed over the post Bob Ryan made about the October 2009 colloquy talk given by Dr. Ness. I keep hearing over and over that this is not in any way an attack on Dr. Ness’ character, but a discussion on the beliefs he presents to the students at PUC. Yet I read about a sermon presenting the creation week told of in Genesis, picked apart piece by piece, and completely skewed to mean something clearly not intended. Perhaps I didn’t understand your post, but I see it as a blantant attack not only on Dr. Ness’ beliefs, but on his character as well. Any man who would knowingly present God’s Word in a fashion that deceives his listeners into accepting an idea that goes against his church’s framework without their knowledge is not an honest follower of Christ. Consider what you are insinuating from your conclusions on his sermon. Please explain this to me if it was not your intent, because I was very disheartened by your post.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  74. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am appalled that Professor Kent would call into question the abundant evidence of a worldwide flood that covered all of the earth. He was out of place to demand that Sean Pitman compare the hypothetical models of 100% and 95% water coverage. That’s a red herring argument, with a answer obvious to us all. I also cannot believe he would call himself a Seventh-day Advents and in the same breath tell us our faith does us no more good than beleiving in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. We all know that we need nothing more than the word of God to beleive in a global flood. Our faith alone will stand! But fortunately we have abundant evidence to confirm that the flood literally did drown out all the earth. Thank you Shane and Sean for defending our beliefs.

    I’m also appalled that none of our biologists at the faithful colleges are coming here to support our faith! Why aren’t we hearing from the biologists at Southern, or at Southwestern? Why aren’t we hearing from the scientists at Geoscience? Why have these people turned their back on the church? Is it true that a biologist at Southwestern believes that animals might have survived outside the ark? I’m shocked at this! If these men cannot come here to show leadership for the church on these issues, as they are PAID to do, then maybe its time to replace them with men who will!

    Some of these people are Lee Spencer from Southern, Arthur Chadwick from Southwestern, Walter Veith from Africa, Ariel Roth and Timothy Standish from Geoscience, Leonard Brand from Loma Linda. These men MUST help present the truth about creation. They should not abandon this task to Sean and Shane who are capable but can use their support.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  75. Inge Anderson, this time I agree with you 100%. I recall Dr. Brand requiring us to read a certain number of pages of literature on the subject of origins and among the available papers was an unpublished manuscript that he had written with a fellow creationist analyzing the biogeographical distribution of mammals before and after the flood. Dr. Brand found it virtually impossible to reconcile the current distribution of mammals with post-flood dispersal from Mt. Ararat. When I questioned him about it he stated that mammals could have rafted to other continents or that divine intervention may have distributed the mammals. In any case, I see no reason to reject Professor Kent’s suggestion that Noah’s flood could have been “global” without necessarily covering every single piece of land because the Hebrew words “all” and “every” don’t always mean 100% of the time, or to reject the possibility that some animals may have survived the flood on rafts.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  76. @Inge Anderson:

    If, as far as I can understand it, the weight of evidence does not support the biblical account, I can still choose to believe the Bible as a final arbiter of truth and make the prediction, based on (informed) faith, that better understanding/more research will eventually support the biblical record.

    In my opinion, there is no such thing as “informed” faith without having a basis in the weight of empirical evidence that one believes that he/she understands. Otherwise, your faith and my faith is not demonstrably superior compared to “faith” in Santa Claus or garden fairies or that the Earth is a sphere instead of a flat disk or that the Bible is somehow superior to the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an…

    Suggesting that we should believe in something equivalent to the “Flat Earth” just because we think our “Good Book” says so just isn’t helpful when it comes to establishing a solid hope within the candid intelligent mind – in my opinion. We must be able to base our faith on the weight of empirical evidence that appeals to candid intelligent minds.

    God never asks anyone to step out on faith that is devoid of the weight of superior empirical evidence – never. As with Abraham, Noah was not asked to believe God’s word regarding his ability to produce the “miraculous” without the demonstration of the weight of empirical evidence that would appeal to a candid mind that is open to truth.

    The same is true for those Noah was preaching to – the antediluvian community. God did not leave them without the weight of empirical evidence in favor of the validity of Noah’s warning. The same is true for us today.

    The Bible’s credibility can be, and I believe must be, based on the weight of empirical evidence. Otherwise, our belief in the Bible is no more rational or credible than the faith of other beleivers in their particular Holy Books – like those who believe in the superiority of the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an…

    In short, if I ever became convinced that the theory of evolution was actually tenable, that the fossil record really does represent hundreds of millions of years of suffering and death for sentient creatures, I’d leave not only the SDA Church behind, but Christianity as well.

    Why? Because, the geologic and fossil records are one of the best empirical evidences we have that are open to investigation with regard to the credibility of the Biblical assertions. There are many metaphysical assertions in the Bible that are not open to the potential for testing or falsification in this life. However, there are a few statements concerning physical reality in the Bible that are open to such scientific tests – and the Bible’s statements on origins are among the very best in this regard. The rest of the Bible, and its overall credibility, depends, to a very large extent, on the demonstrated reliability of the Biblical account of origins…

    This is not some insignificant concept we’re talking about here. This is one of the primary linchpins of the entire credibility of the Gospel’s message of Hope that is under heavy fire and has been for some 150 years…

    Think about it…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  77. Mary Anne L., if you had been following this website for a very long you would realize that it is actually Sean, not Professor Kent, who reapeatedly insinuates that our faith does us no more good than beleiving in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. It is Professor Kent, not Sean, who has repeatedly emphasized and promoted the role of faith. Professor Kent is SDA and believes in the Bible not because of the preponderance of scientific evidence but because of faith. Professor Kent’s faith is not blind. He recognizes that there is scientific and historical evidence supporting what the Bible teaches, but not EVERYTHING that is mentioned in the Bible. There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence whatsoever that the sun ever stood still, that a man can survive for 3 days in the belly of a fish, that Jesus was conceived within a virgin, or that a person could be resurrected from the death. And there is no SCIENTIFIC evidence that the flood covered every speck of land. If you believe in those things, Professor Kent is trying to tell us that the basis of your belief is faith, not evidence.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  78. For those of you who were unaware, there has been a strong consensus among geologists for several decades that there is ample scientific evidence for a global flood. However, they believe in not just one global flood, but TWO global floods! There is some disagreement about which was higher.

    The pattern of sea level variation is summarized here:

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png

    http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2010/40594snedden/ndx_snedden.pdf (be sure to scroll down all the way to page 3)

    So which of these two floods represents Noah’s flood? Or should the data be dismissed as unreliable? Should any professor who dares to present a graph of the data in the classroom, which could potentially cause students to lose faith in the Bible, be reported immediately to Educate Truth so that heretics can be held accountable?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  79. Wait a minute, Sean, why are YOU comparing faith to santa claus? I think Inge Anderson wrote much that made a lot of sense. Maybe for you the Bibles accuracy hinges on creation and flood evidence, but many of us think the Bible holds up well enough without all the science mumbo jumbo. I have no problem believing in a six day creation, original sin, salvation and the atonement regardless of what science has to tell us. I don’t think it all revolves around just this one issue that is still important. I don’t think there is ANY comparison between my faith in the Bible and Santa clause.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  80. @Eddie:

    Inge Anderson, this time I agree with you 100%. I recall Dr. Brand requiring us to read a certain number of pages of literature on the subject of origins and among the available papers was an unpublished manuscript that he had written with a fellow creationist analyzing the biogeographical distribution of mammals before and after the flood. Dr. Brand found it virtually impossible to reconcile the current distribution of mammals with post-flood dispersal from Mt. Ararat. When I questioned him about it he stated that mammals could have rafted to other continents or that divine intervention may have distributed the mammals.

    Or they could simply have died out in certain places but not in others. If you look at the post-Flood fossil distribution of animals in the Paleocene to the Pliocene (Cenozoic) there seems to be a great deal more diversity that exists today – to include marsupials that today only exist in more limited areas and hummingbirds that today only exist in the Americas. Another example is that of monotremes which were once thought to be unique to Australia until the discovery, in 1991, of a fossil platypus tooth in South America stunned the scientific community. This find, of course, suggests that some sort of land bridge once existed between Australia and S. America…

    In any case, I see no reason to reject Professor Kent’s suggestion that Noah’s flood could have been “global” without necessarily covering every single piece of land because the Hebrew words “all” and “every” don’t always mean 100% of the time, or to reject the possibility that some animals may have survived the flood on rafts.

    Such a suggestion is completely out of harmony with both the Bible and with the very specific comments of Mrs. White on the topic of the Flood. You basically end up with a position where the Bible is not, even in theory, falsifiable in anything it says. It is therefore not really possible to demonstrate its credibility either…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  81. @Mary Anne L.:

    I don’t think there is ANY comparison between my faith in the Bible and Santa clause.

    I’m very glad to hear it. Of course, I’d also be interested to know why you think your faith in the Bible is superior or more credible than the faith of Latter-day Saints in the superiority of the Book of Mormon or the faith of Muslim’s in the superiority of the Qur’an? Upon what basis does your faith in the ultimate credibility of the Bible rest?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  82. Re Sean’s Quote

    “The Bible’s credibility can be, and I believe must be, based on the weight of empirical evidence. Otherwise, our belief in the Bible is no more rational or credible than the faith of other beleivers in their particular Holy Books – like those who believe in the superiority of the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an…”

    “In short, if I ever became convinced that the theory of evolution was actually tenable, that the fossil record really does represent hundreds of millions of years of suffering and death for sentient creatures, I’d leave not only the SDA Church behind, but Christianity as well.”

    This is courageous. This is also why Prof. Kent is, rightfully I might add, concerned about Sean’s position. If one’s science is faith driven and ultimately the vast preponderance of science cannot objectively support that position what happens to one’s faith?

    Can one person be the objective barometer of all of science? I can’t. It has to be tested by the collective objectivity of many over the course of time. But one can use rational discernment to comprehend that.

    Sean, if after sober reflection I ever come to the conclusion that the overwhelming evidence supports that all life, baring a bit of sea life, came off the Ark about 4000 years ago I’ll gladly join you at Sabbath service.

    Cheers
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  83. @Ken:

    Sean, if after sober reflection I ever come to the conclusion that the overwhelming evidence supports that all life, baring a bit of sea life, came off the Ark about 4000 years ago I’ll gladly join you at Sabbath service.

    Of course! What other rational option would you have at that point? Why do you think I’m an SDA today? I have no other rational option given what I think the best empirical evidence that I can comprehend is telling me…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  84. You guys are nuts!… the Professor is right – this is nothing more than a witch-hunting website and a poor excuse for handing parents a conscience.

    If you want to encourage faith in God, like your website says… allow the Lord to do the ‘weeding out’ and get on your knees and pray! According to Scripture a lot more will happen that will last for eternity. It’s much easier to point a finger than it is to share a cup of tea and understand why someone differs in their ideas from you.

    You’d probably be surprised at the conversations Paul, Barnabas, and John Mark had! Seriously, if God is big enough to handle this, don’t you think his followers should be too?

    Come on… let’s go tell people about JESUS and his soon return. Not gripe over someone else’s piece of grass and how they use it!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  85. Sean

    I’m a little disappointed you feel the need to grill me about my faith. I’m on your side of this issue, and now you are treating me as if I have said something wrong.

    There are MANY reasons to believe the Bible is real! Chief among them is prophecy. Many events predicted throughout the Bible have come about. Archeology also supports the Bible in many ways. Nothing about archeology supports the claims for example of the Book of Mormon. The lives of the disciples are very influential for me personally. These men lived and wrote humbly of themselves and then one by one they all chose death rather than to say they were wrong to believe in Jesus. That is a powerful witness about their experience with God. The timeliness of the Bible messages are even compelling. If for ezxample the Qur’an was correct, why did God wait all those hundreds of years before informing his followers that Jesus did not actually die on the cross? When I read the Bible and interact with people who read the Bible I see changes in lives that for me constitutes important evidence. So you see, there is ample evidence outside of biology and geology to sustain our faith. Its sad that you can’t see or appreciate this.

    I believe the Adventist understanding of Genesis is very important and do not understand why the science leaders in our church do come out and support it. But I don’t believe for one minute we HAVE to have all this scientific evidence to believe in the BIble. Sure it helps and we need to understand it but our faith does NOT depend on it.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  86. He evidently thinks of the creation week in symbolic terms or at least does not think that all life was necessarily produced during a single literal week of time.After all, the fossil record is a record of death – death that Dr. Ness does not think was necessarily the result of the global Noachian Flood, but could have taken place over vast eons of time…I don’t know about you, but this is not a minor issue.

    Indeed it isn’t a minor issue. And you’ve raised an excellent point.

    So we have students commenting that he believes in a 6-day creation, from what I recall, but suggesting that Noah’s Flood was a non-global event seems to contradict that position.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  87. If you want to encourage faith in God, like your website says… allow the Lord to do the ‘weeding out’ and get on your knees and pray

    Have you forgotten how God does the weeding out?

    1) There is a revival of the straight testimony.

    2) Some don’t like it and rise up against it.

    If we have faith in God, we will tactfully, kindly, firmly, and unequivocally say what has to be said when serious issues come along.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  88. Re Sean’s Quote
    This is courageous. This is also why Prof. Kent is, rightfully I might add, concerned about Sean’s position. If one’s science is faith driven and ultimately the vast preponderance of science cannot objectively support that position what happens to one’s faith?

    I think maybe you mean to suggest that if one’s faith is merely science-driven, what happens when science ultimately does not support one’s faith?

    Am I correct?

    I believe that is a concern.

    God gives us enough evidence to believe. After that He asks us to trust Him. The “empirical evidence” that the biblical account is correct may not all come in our lifetime. That’s when we believe by faith that the biblical account of origins is true.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  89. @Eddie:

    there has been a strong consensus among geologists for several decades that there is ample scientific evidence for a global flood. However, they believe in not just one global flood, but TWO global floods! There is some disagreement about which was higher.

    The pattern of sea level variation is summarized here:

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png

    http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2010/40594snedden/ndx_snedden.pdf (be sure to scroll down all the way to page 3)

    That’s fascinating.

    I’m guessing that this can be fit into the biblical history scenario. It just requires more study. From a short-age perspective, these “two floods” could just be phases of one great flood, or so it seems to me.

    There are a lot of interesting lines of study open to a scientist who looks at the world from a biblical perspective, it seems to me.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  90. @ Sean Pitman

    After all, the fossil record is a record of death – death that Dr. Ness does not think was necessarily the result of the global Noachian Flood, but could have taken place over vast eons of time…

    I was a little taken back by the quote used by Bob Pickle. I had to search a little to find the source, and apparently it was my fellow colleague, Dr. Sean Pitman.

    Up to this point (the Dr. Ness situation at PUC), I have silently applauded Educate Truth’s effort to bring certain light to our attention. But this website has now gone way too far across a line. This particular quote, from Dr. Pitman, is an example of the frank dishonesty displayed by many of the “keepers of the faith” at this website. Nowhere have I seen any hint that Dr. Ness truly BELIEVES that the fossil record could represent “vast eons of time.” And Bob Ryan’s post was also a disgusting and deplorably inappropriate dissection of a very fine sermon by Dr. Ness. I am increasingly abhored by what I am reading here. I have saved many a life in my years, and I have won over my share of converts to our faith. But this ungodly approach will never bring eternal life to anyone.

    I have long been suspicious of Professor Kent’s always penetrating but sometimes sharp-tongued and occasionally sarcastic postings here. As time has gone by, I have to give him credit for the consistency and honesty he brings to this site. I think he uses rhetoric deliberately and craftily to get our attention, which he succeeds at. His interpretation of the three demands by Educate Truth was right on the money. I was very impressed and convinced further when Inge Anderson was able to put it together as well, and see the problems Kent has been trying to point out all along. Anderson’s post, by the way, was a masterpiece.

    It’s time to stop this witch hunt and find better things to do with our time. Yes, the teachers of our colleges should treat our beliefs with respect, but they should not be under pressure to use non-existent or conjured evidence to shore up the beliefs of our young people. Yes, there is evidence aplenty of one or more big floods in the earth’s history. Evidently, both creationists and geologists agree with that, so what really do we have?

    There is absolutely NO reason to insist that the Bible is wrong and our faith will fail us if the physical evidence for a global flood covering the entire planet does not exist. So what if we don’t have the evidence! As Mary Anne L. thoughtfully put it, we have PLENTY of evidence beyond that which relates to Genesis to support our faith. THIS IS NOT A BIG DEAL!!! PLEASE STOP USING DISHONEST AND CRUEL MEANS TO PERSECUTE OUR FELLOW SCIENTISTS AND UNNECESSARILY DEFEND OUR BELIEFS.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  91. I was just now reading the latest “update” at the top of this page and noted this quote:

    “This is not some minor point. The local Flood idea opens the door, and essentially requires, the intelligent mind to interpret the geologic column and fossil records as being the records of vast periods of time of Earth’s history.”

    While I certainly believe the flood was global, I have to ask why anyone (Pitman?) would write, much less believe this total nonsense. It’s a gross overstatement. Does it open the door? Perhaps. Does it require? Get out of here!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  92. “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:15-18). – Church Manual, p. 185

    Settlement of Differences Among Members—Every effort should be made to settle differences among church members and contain the controversy within the smallest possible sphere. “Contentions, strife, and lawsuits between brethren are a disgrace to the cause of truth. Those who take such a course expose the church to the ridicule of her enemies and cause the powers of darkness to triumph. They are piercing the wounds of Christ afresh and putting Him to an open shame. By ignoring the authority of the church they show contempt for God, who gave to the church its authority.”—Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 242, 243. – Church Manual, p. 191

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  93. God never asks anyone to step out on faith that is devoid of the weight of superior empirical evidence – never.As with Abraham, Noah was not asked to believe God’s word regarding his ability to produce the “miraculous” without the demonstration of the weight of empirical evidence that would appeal to a candid mind that is open to truth.

    Ok Sean, you are saying that Noah had empirical evidence to base his faith on.
    So, what was the empirical evidence he had proving the flood was going to happen? Or was the empirical evidence supporting that God was truthful, and based on that previous evidence, Noah knew that if God said it, it was true.

    I have empirical evidence showing that the Bible is true, and that God is trustworthy.
    Just because I lack empirical evidence for every story in the Bible does not impact my faith. It’s like a bridge, you have a few pillars holding it up and a good foundation at the end, and the rest is faith.

    If you would allow something that Sister White states we won’t have overwhelming empirical evidence for undermine your faith, then is it possible you are basing your faith in the evidence instead of in God?

    How about when they were crossing the Jordan, and God told them to just walk across. The water didn’t part until feet hit it. What was the empirical evidence they were basing their faith on?
    What was the empirical evidence the antediluvians had in favor of Noah’s warnings?
    What was the empirical evidence that Jesus presented to the people he told to stand up and walk, or stretch their hand out, or any number of other examples where he told someone to do something entirely based on faith.

    If you have to have overwhelming evidence to support your faith, then you have no faith.

    ~

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  94. “Often, as you seek to present the truth, opposition will be aroused; but if you seek to meet the opposition with argument, you will only multiply it, and that you cannot afford to do. Hold to the affirmative.–9T 147.”

    According to Sister White (for those of you that still believe she is worth studying), debating a doctrinal issue as is being done here is sinful.
    To summarize for those that won’t feel like slogging through all the quotes and texts:
    When you debate, you are not just debating against men, but against Satan.
    When you debate, one side is guaranteed to be espousing falsehoods, and in many case both sides are.
    When you debate, the Holy Spirit is not there to back you up, and help you to properly understand the subject.

    This is airing internal church debate in a very public forum, which is high ranking in several google searches related to Noah’s Flood.
    Not only is this an internal church debate, this is a personal attack on a brother, ignoring many instructions on how to handle these situations.
    Those of you that are doing the attacking are just as much deserving of church censure as anybody being attacked.
    Those of you that posted the video are doing more to undermine faith than Dr. Ness may have been doing. He had an audience of what, 30 people? How large an audience have you allowed this to reach now? Plus the way you have been attacking him presents a very bad picture of the followers of Christ, not only for the others that might come here, but for the church members that come here. How many people is this discussion driving away from Christ?
    If I didn’t have a strong opinion already on this subject, based on the tenor of the attacks being made on a brother, I would be likely to accept his position just based on the facts his attackers are acting very un-Christlike, therefore plainly not in possession of the truth or the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

    Wake up people! How is attacking one person publicly that is teaching what the SDA Institution that he works for tells him to going to change anything?
    Attacks never change minds, they just harden hearts.

    You have to “Hold to the affirmative”, and present the truth with the power of the Holy Spirit, and then let God work on the hearts!

    “When differences arise among brethren as to the understanding of any point of truth, there is one Bible rule to follow. In the spirit of meekness and love for God and one another, let brethren come together, and after earnest prayer, with sincere desire to know God’s will, study the Bible with the spirit of a little child, to see how closely they can draw together, and not sacrifice anything but their selfish dignity. They should regard themselves as in the presence of the whole universe of God, who are watching with intense interest as brother tries to see eye to eye with brother, to understand the words of Christ, that they may be doers of the word, and not hearers only.”
    “When you recall the prayer of Christ, that his disciples may be one as he was one with the Father, can you not see how intently all heaven is beholding the spirit you manifest toward one another? Are those who claim to be saved by the righteousness of Christ, seeking with all their entrusted capabilities to answer the Saviour’s prayer? Will they grieve the Holy Spirit of God by indulging their own unconsecrated feelings, struggling for supremacy, and standing as far apart as possible? . . . The solemn, important hours intervening between us and the judgment are not to be employed in warfare with believers.” {GCDB, February 6, 1893}

    “Sometimes one or two of the brethren would stubbornly set themselves against the view presented, and would act out the natural feelings of the heart; but when this disposition appeared, we suspended our investigations and adjourned our meeting, that each one might have an opportunity to go to God in prayer, and without conversation with others, study the point of difference, asking light from heaven.

    After earnest prayer, if any point was not understood, it was discussed, and each one expressed his opinion freely; then we would again bow in prayer, and earnest supplications went up to heaven that God would help us to see eye to eye, that we might be one, as Christ and the Father are one.

    “Let us not grieve the Holy Spirit of God. Jesus is with us; let us keep a humble and teachable spirit;”
    (From Review and Herald – July 26, 1892 ”

    “It is not enough to study the Bible as other books are studied. In order for it to be understood savingly, the Holy Spirit must move on the heart of the searcher. The same Spirit that inspired the Word must inspire the reader of the Word. Then will be heard the voice of heaven. “Thy Word, O God, is truth” will be the language of the soul. {LHU 111.6} ”

    “Satan has gained many victories over the professed followers of Jesus through their unchristlike spirit and behavior toward their brethren who do not agree with them, and toward unbelievers. The discussion of doctrines has not resulted in bringing union, but variance. A bitter spirit has been cherished, bitter words have been spoken. The words of the True Witness should be carefully studied by all: “I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love,”-RH, February 9, 1892″

    “The combative armor, the debating spirit, must be laid off. If we would be Christlike we must reach men where they are.–Ev 249

    “Often, as you seek to present the truth, opposition will be aroused; but if you seek to meet the opposition with argument, you will only multiply it, and that you cannot afford to do. Hold to the affirmative.–9T 147.

    “Avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. Titus 3:9.”

    ” The Holy Spirit does not work with men who love to be sharp and critical. This spirit has been cherished in meeting debaters, and some have formed the habit of squaring [off] for combat. God is dishonored in this. Keep back the sharp thrusts; do not learn in Satan’s school his methods of warfare. The Holy Spirit does not inspire the words of censure. A time of trouble is before us, and every honest soul who has not had the light of truth will then take a stand for Christ. Those who believe the truth are to be newly converted every day. Then they will be vessels unto honor. {UL 270.2}
    Do not repeat the words of your opponents, or enter into controversy with them. You meet not merely the men, but Satan and his angels. Christ did not bring against Satan a railing accusation concerning the body of Moses. If the world’s Redeemer, who understood the crooked, deceptive arts of Satan, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but in holiness and humility said, “The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan,” is it not wise for His servants to follow His example? Will finite human beings take a course that Christ shunned, because it would afford Satan occasion to pervert, misrepresent, and falsify the truth? {UL 270.3} ”

    Father forgive them, for they know not what the affects of their words are…

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  95. This notion expressed by “Devoted SDA” about “letting God do the weeding” while we humans simply pray and “tell the world about Jesus,” exposes one of the most significant obstacles in the minds of many contemporary Adventists when it comes to the issue of church discipline.

    When Jesus said to “let the wheat and tares grow together,” He was not forbidding the church to remove open sin and apostasy from the church. The Bible, and Christ Himself, give ample evidence that open offense against the truth merits the application of the disciplinary process. What Jesus forbade, in declaring that the wheat and tares should be permitted to grow together, was the judgment of character and motive (see Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 71). God alone knows the heart (I Kings 8:39), so He alone can decide someone’s eternal destiny. But when open sin and apostasy are promoted–and certainly it is open apostasy to promote theistic evolution and the denial of a worldwide Flood, in direct defiance of the inspired record–it becomes the duty of believers to call for, and initiate, appropriate action.

    Too many Adventists, for several decades now, have embraced the falsehood that so long as they pray, study the Bible, and witness, thus maintaing a “relationship with Jesus,” that He supposedly will do all the dirty work of getting rid of their sins, thus relieving them of this responsibility themselves. (All agree that God supplies the power for overcoming, but too many believe God will actually do the work as well, while they simply “let Him.”) When this principle is applied to the collective life of the church, a similar pious apathy results. Believers assume that “God will do all the house-cleaning necessary,” an assumption which dovetails neatly with the popular middle-class American aversion to controversy and the taking of sides.

    But God has never promised to clean up either the church or our personal lives without our active involvement and participation. Paul declares: “Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (II Cor. 7:1). And Jude admonishes us to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). Pious apathy is one principal reason the church is facing so many of the challenges we now confront. When we–as a church and as individuals– recover godly zeal against error and sin, revival and reformation will be given their practical meaning.

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  96. Dear Gary:

    Welcome to the discussion. I appreciate your evident sincerity. I would like to ask, however, if you have read the Spectrum article by Dr. Ness which I referred to in an earlier post, the one found in the Fall 2009 issue of Spectrum, titled, “Creation, Evolution, and Adventist Higher Education.”

    In my view, a written article is a more likely indicator of someone’s beliefs than a spoken lecture or sermon, the latter often involving spontanteous and unedited expression. If you read this article by Ness, I believe you will recognize why many are concerned about his openness to certain ideas which clearly militate against the tachings of Scripture, Ellen White, and fundamental Adventism.

    Perhaps the recording of the lecture at PUC was unauthorized, though whether his comments were taken out of context is at best debatable when one watches the clip, as I have. But the Spectrum article is another matter. As one who often writes articles on controversial issues, I can attest that written material like this involves editing and the careful crafting of words, at least in most cases.

    I encourage all of Ness’s defenders on this site to read the Spectrum article, and see if they can’t at least understand why sincere “keepers of the faith” (as you describe them) wouldn’t have a right to be concerned.

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  97. @Mary Anne L.:

    I believe the Adventist understanding of Genesis is very important and do not understand why the science leaders in our church do come out and support it. But I don’t believe for one minute we HAVE to have all this scientific evidence to believe in the BIble. Sure it helps and we need to understand it but our faith does NOT depend on it.

    Of course there are many types of evidences supporting the credibility of the Bible. I’ve personally given many talks listing off the very evidences you list off. However, this being said, the question of origins is a very big deal for many people because it can be so directly investigated and is therefore given a great deal of weight.

    The argument could reasonably be made that you give more weight to prophecy and archeology (which are based on forms of historical science by the way) than to geology and paleoanthropology because you simply don’t understand the latter sciences as well as you think you understand more recent historical sciences. There are those who give much more weight to the geological and paleontological sciences than you give them. This is why, for these people, the totality of the weight of evidence in their minds could easily be tipped away from biblical credibility – and reasonably so.

    After all, given what I currently think I understand, I would not believe that the Earth was flat, rather than a sphere, even if I thought that the Bible clearly said as much.

    This is about establishing the credibility of the Bible in as many candid minds as possible. What does it for you might not do it for someone else. Therefore, for you to argue that it doesn’t really matter if one sees the scientific evidence on origins as being inconsistent with the Bible, and teaching as much in our schools, because we can have faith anyway that the Bible is true regardless of how we view the weight of scientific evidence, is essentially an argument that all pastors and teachers in the SDA Church should be free to teach and preach whatever they want as long as they end by saying, “We believe the Bible anyway despite all the overwhelming evidence that is apparently against us.”

    I’m sorry, but that is a mistaken attitude toward the issue of origins. It is a very important issue in the Church today and should be decidedly addressed if we would wish to retain more of our youth within the Church… by not telling them that the Genesis account is largely fable and allegory or otherwise not really literally true…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  98. @Gary Komruliak, MD:

    I was just now reading the latest “update” at the top of this page and noted this quote:

    “This is not some minor point. The local Flood idea opens the door, and essentially requires, the intelligent mind to interpret the geologic column and fossil records as being the records of vast periods of time of Earth’s history.”

    While I certainly believe the flood was global, I have to ask why anyone (Pitman?) would write, much less believe this total nonsense. It’s a gross overstatement. Does it open the door? Perhaps. Does it require? Get out of here!

    Get out of here? Ok, you tell me how one would rationally explain the fossil record as representing a short period of time (i.e., less than 10,000 years) given that there is no reasonable evidence of a global flood within recent history? – that there is only evidence for a local or relatively small regional flood in the Black Sea area?

    Why do you think someone would argue that there is only evidence for local floods; not any worldwide Flood? – as Dr. Ness has consistently taught his students for many years now? What does that idea suggest to students regarding the origin of the fossil record within the sedimentary layers of the geologic column?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  99. @Inge Anderson:

    God gives us enough evidence to believe. After that He asks us to trust Him. The “empirical evidence” that the biblical account is correct may not all come in our lifetime. That’s when we believe by faith that the biblical account of origins is true.

    God does indeed give us enough evidence to rationally believe. Of course, “enough evidence” does not mean “all the evidence”. There is always a leap of faith that must be taken beyond which the evidence itself can absolutely demonstrate with perfection. The very same thing is true of science. Science, by definition, requires leaps of faith beyond what the evidence itself will conclusively support.

    That being said, what serves as the “weight of evidence” for you may not do it for someone else with a different background who weighs different types of evidence differently than you do. It is for this reason that the topic of origins is so vital in our Church today – because many people give a great deal of weight to the sciences of geology, paleontology, etc. I include myself in this group.

    While an overwhelming weight of evidence from these sciences may not phase someone like you, it certainly would and has undermined the faith of many other people in this world – and for good reason. It would definitely undermine my own faith if I actually saw the conclusions of mainstream scientists as tenable.

    In short, what I see your argument as saying is that it doesn’t really matter what scientists believe or teach because one can still believe the Bible anyway based on faith – in the face of otherwise overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary. Given that position, it really makes no difference what our science professors believe or teach in our schools – right? After all, we can just ask our youth to believe anyway based on “faith”. Good luck with that approach is all I’m saying. It just won’t be taken as very convincing for most intelligent young candid minds…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment

Leave a Reply to Sean Pitman Cancel reply