Dear David, That was an excellent response. Thank you. At least …

Comment on Adventists are virtually silent by Denver Fletcher.

Dear David,

That was an excellent response. Thank you. At least now I think I understand your point, although I do not agree with it.

I think that even your last quote emphasises that true science and Christianity ARE in complete agreement. Surely they MUST be, since God IS the creator of both?

But man’s **opinions** about science and religion are often in conflict, which again only emphasises that the problem is in man, just as biblical Christianity teaches.

I do not agree that “the truth is not out there” because “the heavens declare the glory of God, the firmament showeth HIS handiwork”. All of creation is a testament to HIS character; it IS the truth, we just dont want to accept it because it deprives us of our illusions about independence.

The problem is that the truth is not IN US!

But thanks for some very interesting and thought-provoking insights.

Regards
Denver

Denver Fletcher Also Commented

Adventists are virtually silent
Bravus,

Neither science nor religion rises or falls on one (normal) man. However, and whatever we think of his ideas today, Newton was a Christian and not only a theist. That was my point.

Do Shakespeares sonnets not have forms and structures that can be analysed using scientific principles? How, for example, do you know that they are sonnets at all? Is there only one single way of evaluating or experiencing their brilliance, and it is confined to how they make one feel?

I do not think so.

I think Sean has already ably covered the love angle.

I doubt we’ll ever agree on the wisdom or otherwise of S J Gould’s beliefs, but I was summarising and not caricaturing.

My Regards
Denver


Adventists are virtually silent
David,

That’s interesting, especially your last line.

Do you mind if I ask you; what then separates the atheist from the Christian?

Has the God you worship (have faith in) created a world in which people are reduced to flipping a coin to decide what SORT of faith to have?

I mean, I agree that atheism in general and evolution in particular are religious convictions, but so too are witchcraft and Hinduism. They’re also, from my perspective, not merely rational alternatives to Christian faith, but they’re categorically **wrong**. I dont “paper over” any holes in my faith, since I have no need to. My faith is empirical, I’ve proved it over and over.

I am not sure how you could persuade anyone that they SHOULD be a Christian using your approach? If it is philosophically no different from being anything else then why bother to change?

What then is the point of the gospel commission, for example?

Do you have the same problem, with professors teaching evolution as if it were fact in an Adventist university, that I have?

If so, why?

I am afraid I dont get it at all …

Regards
Denver


Adventists are virtually silent
P.S. Thanks Paul.

Much obliged.


Recent Comments by Denver Fletcher

It’s about authority

Mortenson says these leaders and scholars are teaching “that science is the final authority in determining the correct interpretation of some or all of Genesis 1–11, or at least that science is the final authority in determining that the young-earth view must be wrong.”

Science is an abstract ideal. It has, therefore, nothing to “say” for itself.

Scientists, on the other hand, are people. Humans. Flawed. Subject to all that flesh is heir to, as the Bard put it. That inlcudes the influence of money, power, and popular acclaim, and it’s opposite, public opprobrium.

Anyone who claims (A) to be a Christian (and in particular, an Adventist Christian) and (B) that a man or group of men is their authority to whom they resort for adjudicating Truth, has strayed far from the path of wisdom.

These two things simply cannot be simultaneously held without contradiction. But truth does not ever contradict itself, and therefore those who take this position are in grievous error.

We must pray for people so lost and confused.


Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
The Ten Commandments are built on the principle of Love. each is an application of that principle to a specific circumstance.

We do not bear false witness against (call a liar) those we love.

There cannot ever be any reconciliation between loving God and calling Him a liar.

If this really is Mr Geraty’s position then he is a long way from the path of wisdom.

Matthew 5:19 “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Mr Geraty has a stark choice to make, however he may like to deny that the choice exists at all.


Video show LSU undermining church doctrine
I’m disturbed by the sophistry on display in this first video.

The formulation given (that knowledge = justified, (and) true, belief) seems both self-serving and over-reaching. Further, it violates the consistency principle, since the speaker goes on to say that certainty is not knowledge and that certainty is not even possible (yet he seems certain that his principle of non-contradiction is true). He goes on to say that knowledge changes over time, that what we thought was true yesterday we “know” today to be false. But if it is false, how then could it have been true? If it is false, it was never true. It could have been “justified” previously, but can never have been true, and therefore cannot have been knowledge according to his formula.

I’m also disturbed by the quoting of E G White to the effect that the truth changes over time (which is not what she said) without giving any reference to her use of the term “the eternal verities” and similar terms, and what these portend.

For example, in Acts of the Apostles, page 64, we read:

When the disciples first heard the words of Christ, they felt their need of Him. They sought, they found, they followed Him. They were with Him in the temple, at the table, on the mountainside, in the field. They were as pupils with a teacher, daily receiving from Him lessons of ETERNAL TRUTH.

Hmmm, eternal truth that changes? I doubt that is what she was trying to convey. Leaving out such essential data is, in the scientific context, a lie.

These students are being set up by their teachers who, far from having in mind a free-ranging enquiry into the truth, have in mind a specific conclusion. A conclusion which is not truth or knowledge, but merely in conformance with their own opinion.

This is not even education, let alone an Adventist education.

It is only indoctrination.

Regards
Denver


Silence of the Geoscience Research Institute
I’d like, with the website owners permission, to recommend the following, all books written by Jonathan Sarfati:

– Refuting Evolution
– Refuting Evolution II
– Refuting Compromise

Especially the latter, which speaks directly to the foolhardy attempt to reconcile biblical Christianity with evolution, and decisively refutes it in quite comprehensive and devastating manner.

I have no interest in the sale of these works other than the defense of our faith, which stands on very solid ground.

Regards
Denver


Student reveals true intent of LSU’s biology seminar class
Louie

When the apostle spoke of spiritual wickedness in high places, he wasn’t only talking about places we consider “worldly”. The bible is replete with examples of spiritual wickedness within the family of God. What you have been exposed to is one more in a line of many. You are right to oppose it, and we all in the church ought to be vigilant in rooting it out of our insitutions wherever we find it, however much we recognise that we can never entirely succeed, in this life.

Unfortunately, there exists a class of people for whom the good opinions of other people are more important to their sense of self-worth than the good opinion of God. So, wanting to seem like “good people” to other Christians they live amongst, but equally wanting intellectual respectibility in the eyes of the world and its scientists, they have attempted to combine biblical Christianity with worldy theories.

To people who understand that God is the author of life, while the world follows the author of death, it is plain that this attempt can never succeed: the two things are inherently opposite and irreconcilable. Ironically, the attempt is fatal to both faith and respectability, because the world will not give them what they want – respect – while they remain Adventist Christians, and eventually they will sacrifice what little remains of their Christianity on this altar, in order to get what is not worth having.

I commend you for taking a very public, and at the same time modestly restrained, stand on this point. I know that God will honour and bless you for it.

Regards
Denver