Last Thursdayism
It’s paradoxical, I think.

If we accept the closed-minded interpretation of the geologic, genetic, embryologic, etc., evidence as absolutely demanding eonic evolution and absolutely ruling out Genesis 1, there being evidence only for evolution and absolutely none for Genesis 1, we, if we want to remain Adventists, have gotten ourselves into one helluva predicament. Having thus taken prevailing science and its evidence as our premise and prime mover, we must somehow achieve a kind of transcendent faith that can be inspired only by immanence, by internal awareness, by sheer grit, rather than the Bible which is patently untrustworthy, or evidence of which there is none. And we will defend our superior faith to the death, and brand — here comes the paradox — those who have eyes to see scientific evidence FOR creation as devoid of even a shredy-shred-shred-shred of faith, and as bowing to the idol of science.

Paradox. Or is it irony? Shall we take a break and argue THAT

Last Thursdayism
Faith vs. evidence, in these posts separately championed, passionately, ably, or frivolously, as if they were NFL teams competing for the Super Bowl. But should they not operate together? I submit they must work together.
Being of the troop of MDs making rounds on these wards, the model that comes first to my mind is the human body. Consider the bone cells and fat cells; the liver and the biceps; the lungs and the anus; teeth and sphincters; the somatic and the splanchnic nerves, hypothalamus and the frontal cortex. You could look it up. And consider how these cells, organs, systems are separate yet inseparable, separate yet functioning together, one taking charge of the others as the occasion demands. Paul (1 Cor 12:14-16) and PET scans say so. When your femoral vein is severed and within minutes you lose half your blood volume, your autonomic system (call it faith) takes over, or should. When you draft architectural, engineering, air conditioning, stage lighting plans, and the financing for a new 30 million dollar multi-media megachurch, your frontal cortex (call it evidence) takes over, or should.
God made our minds capable of processing evidence and requires us to do just that, and accordingly indeed has provided such evidence if we but have eyes to see (that’s the tricky part), whereby our faith may be all the stronger, whereby we are made capable of perceiving even more exquisite evidence. Put this in any order you like, as your premise: He requires us to require evidence, so He has given us evidence, thus to have faith, which He requires. Matt 22:37 says so: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul (call it faith), and with all thy mind (call it evidence). It is true that He requires faith, and therefore has given us a heart to believe with, but only on evidence, and therefore has given us eyes to see with, as Christ Himself urged. It is an integrated process, not separate components good only for arguing on blogs, a process ongoing and progressive and smooth and seamless, like your cerebellum and thumbs, like keyboard and motherboard; simultaneous and parallel and in sequence, meeting itself coming and going, compounding itself upon every return.

Last Thursdayism
Oh my, our amusing agent provocateur finally, at least for the moment (it can’t last), gets his comeuppance. Our professor rather asked for it, again. Go Victor. While this, shall we say, more intimate level of interaction lasts, may I join in?
Rather as the Pouncing Professor tried to identify Vic with his own shtick, I second Vic’s motion: absolute candy-cotton spun whimsy, as has become so familiar to these posts, is not evidence for real existence. If evidence for anything, it’s against it. Ergo, the Kent construct is most likely a Seanean keyboard macro punched in four times a day to play against his own signature level-headedness, yea his peace that passeth all understanding against what he has had to put up with, thus demonstrating how silly and rejectable all-out Alinsky-speak can get. This has now become manifest, “…as any thinking reader of this blog will agree,” as per our Forp’s own favorite punch-in proverb, more accurately sent against him than employed by him. The kind of sleight of hand that could, if played with less whimsy, deceive the very elect has become a laughing stock, I think.
But seriously, as to faith/evidence, to my way of thinking both Victor and Sean, if I may thus personify their concepts, are right, simultaneously. God made our minds capable of processing evidence and requires us to do just that, and accordingly indeed has provided such evidence if we but have eyes to see (that’s the tricky part), whereby our faith may be all the stronger, whereby we are made capable of perceiving even more exquisite evidence. He requires us to require evidence, so He has given us evidence, to have faith, which He requires. It is true that He requires faith, and therefore has given us a heart to believe with, but only on evidence, and therefore has given us eyes to see with, as Christ Himself urged. It is an integrated process, not separate components good only for arguing, a process ongoing and progressive and smooth and seamless; simultaneous and parallel and in sequence, meeting itself coming and going, compounding itself upon every return.
This is circular reasoning. But it is divinely circular reasoning. To humans it’s contradictory reasoning. Christ, however, presented cosmic contradictions with a straight face, e.g., “No man can come to me except the Father … draw him.” John 6:44 KJV; “No one cometh unto the Father but by me.” John 14:6 KJV. Man cannot, must not reason like that or he simply spins and is spun.

Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
Informative and stimulating, but proceeding into more confusion. A veteran of Moderna vaccinations, I trust, hope, they are effective, at least until otherwise. The whole business, being part of End Times, is in the hands of God, not humans expert and as degreed as they may be.

Brilliant and Beautiful, but Wrong
Brilliant, beautiful, and so right! Speaking of your presentation at LLU recently. Great to see you and your family (especially my namesake, Wes. God bless! WK

Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Bob Helm: Dr. Sanford is very familiar to most of us. He was invited to speak at LLU several years ago and I and a great many were privileged to hear him.

Evolution from Space?
Hats off yet again to Sean for pursuing this topic as a scientist should, no nonsense, and in it’s proper setting — as a revival of one of the ancient ideas recently upgraded as a desperate alternative to the increasingly compelling intelligent design data. I had occasion to review panspermia a few years ago and as is my wont I found it more amusing than scientific. If you would like what was intended to be a satirical response to panspermia and other related curiosities you could check out: http://www.iessaythere.com/black-hole-humor.html
Meantime, Sean’s article is of far more cogent worth.

The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
As he has done on this site many times, Sean in his line-by-line-item response to C. White (not EG or EB) has, to my mind, clearly enunciated the issue and resolution.

When all the hermeneutics, quoting, and arguing and inordinately judgmental riposte are over, it comes down, as I understand it, to two things: 1) Whether the 7th day Sabbath (whether enunciated in the famous 10 commandments or otherwise) is still valid, and 2) Does the grace obtained by the vicarious sacrifice by the shedding of Christ’s blood or other divine process too deep for us to understand in this life, cover every sin automatically and without ado, altogether passively on our part, or is it only on condition that we first totally and deeply accept it? Other details always hassled forever are distractions.

I accept that I must accept it, wholly, actively, even with agony, with my whole being.