Re Professor’s Kent’s Quote. “Good one! I really do love this …

Comment on Ravi Zacharias: Should Church Members be Held to a Higher Standard? by Ken.

Re Professor’s Kent’s Quote.

“Good one! I really do love this quote. The Holy Spirit can capture even the most wayward soul. There is hope for a despised soul like me after all. Professor Kent(Quote)”

Dear Sir

Who despises your soul?

Regards
Ken

Ken Also Commented

Ravi Zacharias: Should Church Members be Held to a Higher Standard?
Re Bob’s Quote

“Given the agnostic world view as context that suggestion makes sense.”

Dear Bob

Thanks you for your kind comments. I certainly appreciate, understand and respect your distinction between the SDA FB biblical view and the agnostic and theistic evolutionary ones.

Regards
Ken


Ravi Zacharias: Should Church Members be Held to a Higher Standard?
Dear All

Thanks to everyone for their comments.

I’m fortunate that this old agnostic has been treated with great respect on this site. My great wish is that you can all do the same with each other.

Even among those of the same strong faith, differences are going to arise. That’s the very nature of man/woman’s free will. That is apparent on this site. But I think that if one is truly strong in faith one need not fear what anyone says or need to become overly defensive. Sometimes the need to be personally right, even in interpretation of the Word of God, can cause one’s objectivity to cloud. As a parent/coach/teacher/ professional/agnostic, I’ve learned after many years to patiently listen and ask why someone believes in any given position, rather than hammer home my own. Why? Because although I am willing to listen to others and open to persuasive arguments, my harshest intellectual critic is myself.

I was quite disturbed by Professor’s Kent admission that he despised himself; dear sir I hope you can conquer that. We are all potentially worthwhile human beings. In my humble experience, I’ve found that if we cannot learn to love ourselves, it is very difficult to love others. Self idolatry, egoism,or narcissism are not true self love, merely insecure imposters. Oddly when we are giving to others we reach the height of self love because we understand our true significance is not solipsistic.

In my estimation the reaching out for God is a noble attempt to understand and connect with divine perfection. But people reach out for perfection in many different ways. Consider that just perhaps, Darwin and Einstein were seeking perfection in their own unique way. Might their genuine efforts have been just as divinely inspired as EGW’s? And if only God knows the heart of men/woman can any of us really say?

I have great difficulty shoehorning the notion of science into any box of faith or non faith. It’s universal appeal is its attempt for non biased intellectual inquiry. Do the scientists that practice it often fail? Yes. Does subsequent scientific inquiry improve upon or change previously held beliefs. Yes. Are scientists that make the attempt to be totally objective irrespective of belief or non belief being virtuous? I’ll allow you my friends to answer that.

I hope I serve some purpose on this site rather than my own intellectual stimulation. That would be nice.

Be good
Ken


Ravi Zacharias: Should Church Members be Held to a Higher Standard?
Re Ron’s quote

“We are dealing with the opposite problem here, as those we are criticizing have heard of “Creation” as espoused by the bible, and choose to deny, reject, and oppose it, despite their “knowledge.” Ron Stone M.D.”

Dear Ron

Thanks for your comments.

Is hearing of something knowledge of it?. Once upon a time the world heard the earth was flat and the earth was the centre of the universe. Was that knowledge of it? Dr. Clausen, an Adventist with a Ph D. in nuclear physics says there is no scientific recent earth model. Is that then knowledge of an old earth creation?

With respect, I think this is why Sean is rightly saying that there has to be empirical tested data to support YEC. Without it, it is conjecture. That is why I don’t think Sean sees Dr, Clausen’s position as morally blameworthy. Dr. Clausen, based on empirical data,does not think the earth is recent.

So, I msy not agree with the position of YEC Adventists but I don’t think them morally blameworthy for interpreting the Bible and the writings of EGW to conclude a young earth.

Do you agree with this moral position or is everyone that disagrees with YEC’s morally corrupt?

Regards
Ken


Recent Comments by Ken

God and Granite Cubes
@ Sean

I enjoyed your article. As I’ve stated before, I think Intelligent Design is a more modern form of Deism and do not think it is irrational. However, as science on an ongoing basis shows what matters are explainable by cause and effect, less is attributable to conscious design. The question of course is what are the limits of science in this regard? For example, will it ever be able to explain First Cause/

Below is a more fulsome quote of Professor Townes, an self acknowledged Protestant Christian. Please note what he has to say about literal creation and evolution. Do you think he is being more reasonable than you on the nature of design?

“I do believe in both a creation and a continuous effect on this universe and our lives, that God has a continuing influence – certainly his laws guide how the universe was built. But the Bible’s description of creation occurring over a week’s time is just an analogy, as I see it. The Jews couldn’t know very much at that time about the lifetime of the universe or how old it was. They were visualizing it as best they could and I think they did remarkably well, but it’s just an analogy.

Should intelligent design be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in schools as religious legislators have decided in Pennsylvania and Kansas?

I think it’s very unfortunate that this kind of discussion has come up. People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there’s no evolution, no changes. It’s totally illogical in my view. Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.
Charles Townes
‘Faith is necessary for the scientist even to get started, and deep faith is necessary for him to carry out his tougher tasks. Why? Because he must have confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mind – in fact his own mind – has a good chance of understanding this order.’
-Charles Townes, writing in “The Convergence of Science and Religion,” IBM’s Think magazine, March-April 1966
Some scientists argue that “well, there’s an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.” Well, that’s a postulate, and it’s a pretty fantastic postulate – it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that’s why it has come out so specially. Now, that design could include evolution perfectly well. It’s very clear that there is evolution, and it’s important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they’re both consistent.

They don’t have to negate each other, you’re saying. God could have created the universe, set the parameters for the laws of physics and chemistry and biology, and set the evolutionary process in motion, But that’s not what the Christian fundamentalists are arguing should be taught in Kansas.

People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they’re saying, “Everything is made at once and then nothing can change.” But there’s no reason the universe can’t allow for changes and plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one. Maybe that’s a bad word to use in public, but it’s just a shame that the argument is coming up that way, because it’s very misleading. “


Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote

“Yes, I am suggesting that our scientists should also be theologians to some degree. I’m also suggesting that our theologians be scientists to some degree as well. There should be no distinct dividing line between the two disciplines…”

Hello Sean

First of all, thank you Holly for your comments. You have always treated me with civility and charity for which I am most grateful.

Secondly, on reflection, I do hope I was not strident or offensive in my recent remarks. I am a guest here and should behave with the utmost respect regarding my Adventist hosts. After all I was proposing the Chair of ID at an ‘Adventist’ institution! What gall and temerity from an agnostic!

However something Dr. Kime said struck a very strange chord in me: that a Chair in ID at Harvard would be a quantum leap ( forward – my edit) while such a Chair would be a step backward at LSU. I’ m very sorry Wes, but for me to honestly investigate reality such double standard is not acceptable.

I am sad today, because I think I’m coming to the end of my Adventist journey. I really did see ID as a sort of bridge between your faith and objective inquiry about a ‘Grand’ Design. (apologies Mr. Hawkings). Oh Wes , perhaps I am ontological Don Quixote after all, comically tilting towards immovable Adventist windmills. 🙁 .

However all is not forlorn because I’ve made excellent friends of the heart here. ;). I won’t forget you.

Good luck in your pursuit of God.

Goodbye
Your agnostic friend
Ken


Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Wes’s Quote

“. But for a Christian, a great devolution, a great recidivation, a tragic forfeiture, foreclosure, worse. If I were to use the vocabulary of some of our recent posters, I’d not put it as delicately.”

Hi Wes and Sean

I just read again portions on ID from Sean’s website Detecting Design. I am very confused by both of your responses. Why the heck is Sean promoting ID as a scientific theory if this is such a Christian retreat? Perhaps you two differ here? I apologize if I am missing the obvious but I see a tremendous disconnect between what Sean is saying about ID and what he is prepared to do to promote it within the subset of Adventist education.

Your agnostic friend
Ken


Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote

“Public association is one thing. Private association is another. While many do not feel at liberty to publicly associate themselves with our work here (for obvious reasons), most who still believe in SDA fundamentals (and who are aware of the longstanding situation at LSU and other places) feel that our work in providing enhanced transparency for what is being taught to our young people in our schools was/is necessary on some level.”

Hi Sean

The irony here is that those that are supporting institutional enhanced transparency are hiding behind cloaks of anonymity. That’s not how you, I, Wes, Bob Ryan, Wes, Bill Sorenson and many others here behave. Imagine if Jesus hid behind a cloak and didn’t proclaim his nature. What legacy of respect would he have left?

Conviction requires courage period.

Your agnostic friend
Ken


Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Intelligent Design

Gentleman, thanks to all for your fulsome replies.

Yes Wes, I remember your cogent analysis of November 14/11. I appreciared it then and its reiteration now. indeed I was waiting to hear from others especially Sean whose site is named Detecting Design. And, here I agree with Bob, ID
does not necessarily rule out any particular design i. e. fiat
creation ot theistic evolution.

But quite frankly I am disaapointed with Sean’s response, not Sean himself for whom I have deep admiration, because I see this as a step backward. Why? Because if you burn the bridge between science and biblical faith it will not be science that suffers.

Ironically Sean makes many fine, cogent arguments for design in nature so I find his reluctance to promote it formally in Adventist education troubling. Respectfully, I don’t think serious enquiry about reality can creep around the periphery or sneak in through the back door. I’m afraid I see a double standard here.

Yes Wes, I understand why Adventists are nervous on this issue. But if one is seeking the truth about reality one can’t wall it in or burn bridges of enquiry. Wes, perhaps the Hellenic maxim should have not so much: Know thyself, but rather Think for thyself. My park bench in Pugwash is a welcome one but does not feature ontological dividers. It is well designed for truth seekers.

Your agnostic friend
Ken