Many SDA evolutionists have stated here and over at Spectrum …

Comment on Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians by BobRyan.

Many SDA evolutionists have stated here and over at Spectrum that they are creationists and that they do not see how atheist evolutionists can solve the problem of abiogenesis.

All 7-day creationists have stated that they do not have the answers to all puzzles, all questions that can be asked. And all of them (except possible Kent and a few others) have admitted that there are excellent science observations in nature that do not conflict with the Bible doctrine on the origins of all complex genomes on the earth as we see them today.

This thread seems to go to the point of a few so-called creationists that only argue in favor of evolutionism and whine very loudly whenever an observation in nature is found to favor Bible doctrine on the origin of all life – even complex genomes. They seem to want to call that position “by faith alone”. However that is a kind of creationism that Dawkins and other atheists keep fabricating as the only form that exists. Almost a mindless factless flat-earther kind of creationism.

It is easy to see how holding to such views “might” help you make friends with evolutionists by saying to everyone of them you meet “you betcha – I agree with you all of science is clearly dictating that evolution is actually what happened in nature”. Then they appear to “want” to add “but when it comes to religion I prefer to say that I believe in the stories and myths of the Bible” and so that is the kind of creationist that I am.

in Christ,


BobRyan Also Commented

Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians
There are two subjects being conflated in some of the claims made here.

1. Rendering the text: This is done using some method of exegesis – Adventists choose the H-G hermenuetic to render the accurate meaning of the text.

2. Supporting or defending what the Bible says (apologetics) against various claims that the Bible is not accurate or is composed of lies or is not trustworthy etc. In this context the issue is STILL not one of “bending the bible” but rather of using the H-G determined meaning as a given – and then arguing the case of whether the text is accurate and trustworthy.

That is what atheists would do and it is what Christians do. Take the most direct meaning of the text and then ask the question about accuracy and trustworthy nature of the text.

By contrast some of our T.E friends try to bend the text instead of spending some time rethinking their policy of uncritically swallowing the dogmas and doctrines of by-faith-alone evolutionism. That is a non-H-G solution. And it is poor science as well.

in Christ,


in Christ,


Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians

Ken: Re Philip’s Quote“The Seventh-day Adventist Church endorsed the Historical-Grammatical hermeneutic of biblical interpretation in the 1986 Annual Council. In so doing, the Church expressly rejected the Historical-Critical hermeneutic of biblical interpretation, as reflected in this statement: “Even a modified use of this method that retains the principle of criticism which subordinates the Bible to human reason is unacceptable to Adventists.” AR, Jan. 22, 1987. The 1986 Annual Council action is reflective of what has been orthodox theology of the Church during the past 147 years.”Dear SeanIs this true or not true?RegardsKen

It is misleading.

The reference quoted was not at all speaking of ucritically accepting evolutionism’s claims in nature (that contradict both the H-G reading of Romans 1 and Genesis 1) as if that has no impact on the acceptance of H-G in those very chapters.

It was never meant to argue that no matter the contradictions in nature that you find you it will never have any implications for acceptance of the Bible.

H-G only speaks to the RENDERING of “the text”. It never recommends making up wild fictions about nature and claiming that both are true.

in Christ,


Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians
Website editor – reposting so the quotes stand out.

Phillip Brantley says:

The Seventh-day Adventist Church endorsed the Historical-Grammatical hermeneutic of biblical interpretation in the 1986 Annual Council. In so doing, the Church expressly rejected the Historical-Critical hermeneutic of biblical interpretation, as reflected in this statement: “Even a modified use of this method that retains the principle of criticism which subordinates the Bible to human reason is unacceptable to Adventists.” AR, Jan. 22, 1987. The 1986 Annual Council action is reflective of what has been orthodox theology of the Church during the past 147 years. The Historical-Grammatical hermeneutic accepts scripture at face value and interprets scripture based on principles of interpretation that arise out of scripture itself.

In order for the Historical-Grammatical model to hold to its claim to interpret the Bible “at face value” based on principles of interpretation that arise out of scripture itself – it would have to use “reason” to state those principles and apply them objectively. Thus it is NOT true in the strictest sense that the the H-G model is unreasonable or that it rejects reason.

RATHER the H-G model rejects the philosphical meandering and traditions of men that seek to pull in every excuse under the sun to bend-and-wrench the text away from its face value meaning.

Thus the H-G model is not open to every atheist on the block that wants to claim some outside “excuse” for arguing that “scripture is not true or as you point out to argue against the “truthfulness of scripture”.

Phillip Brantley says:
In contrast, the Historical-Critical hermeneutic puts scripture to the test and relies on external norms and bodies of knowledge to determine the meaning and truthfulness of scripture.

As noted – the H-G model is not trying to figure out which part of the Bible is truthful. But it can be used in places like Dan 2 and 7 to establish the trustworthy nature of prophecy.

Phillip Brantley says:

The cryptic language Dr. Pitman quotes in “An Affirmation of Creation—Report” from 2004 was not intended to effect a change in the Church’s hermeneutical approach to scripture. This statement did not and does not open the door to countenance criticism of the sacred text

It is agreed that the Affirmation of Creation statement is not intended to open a flood gate of criticism against the Bible. Obviously.

But the SDA position has long held to the idea of informed faith based on “the weight of evidence”. It has always held a high regard for finding evidence in nature that results in faith and Romans 10 and Romans 1 argue that same thing about the invisible attributes of God clearly seen in the “things that have been made”.

Phillip Brantley says:

Criticism as discussed above is a term of art that describes a hermeneutical effort to validate or invalidate biblical text based on an external body of knowledge such as science. She wrote, “God will punish all those who, as higher critics, exalt themselves, and criticize God’s Holy Word.” BE Feb 1, 1897.Directly on point is her following statement: “But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the DEDUCTIONS OF SCIENCE, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority–not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence FOR OR AGAINST any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus saith the Lord’ in its support.” GC 595 (emphasis added).

The point that Dawkins, Provine, Meyers, Darwin make below agrees perfectly with that Ellen White states on that same subject in 3SG 90-91.

Darwinism leads to atheism
Expelled: 7 of 10 – Darwinism leads to atheism.
– Provine interview. I was a Christian
– PC Meyers joins Provine on this POV
– Dawkins joins Meyers and Provine

Ellen White’s statement in 3SG 90-91 agrees to the point of saying that you cannot conclude from nature that evolutionism is true – and still have the right view of God, or creation or the Sabbath.

Phillip Brantley says:

I know of no Church leader or theologian who presently supports this website’s campaign against La Sierra University

The subtle fallacies in that single statement are several.

1. It is unlikely that every church leader has written to you to confide in you their thoughts favorable or unfavorable regarding this website and the posts here.

2. This web site has never declared itself to be in a “campaign against LSU” nor has anyone that posted here said such a thing.

3. It is fallacious to argue that every student and faculty member at LSU can be cast in the same mold as the religion and biology department professors who choose to evangelize for evolutionism at LSU on the church’s dime. This web site has not done that.

4. A number of our own SDA church leaders presented their views at the “Yes Creation” event in Atlanta opposing the sacrifice-all-for-evolutionism stand. A stand easily illustrated by prof Bradley’s statements to the press and Erv Taylor’s own statements on this forum as he himself is a guest lecturer on this very subject at LSU.

Phillip Brantley says:

Bolstering the Word of God with external evidence seems pious, too. But when one puts the Genesis account of creation to the test, and freely admits that his or her belief in that sacred text rises or falls based on science data, that is heresy.

Again this is a twisting of the facts. As noted – even Ellen White admits that to make evolutionist claims for what happened in nature is to reject faith in God (or at the very least undermine it) such that it results in the “Worst” form of infidelity (her words not mine).

This conclusion that it obviates faith in God is the confirmed testimony of the now atheist evolutionists I pointed to (giving their own views on video in this case) and it was the testimony of Darwin himself and of every creationist on the planet.

Phillip Brantley says:

To be rejected on theological grounds is this website’s claim that teaching mainstream science in an Adventist university science class undermines belief in the Genesis account of creation, because science has no evidentiary basis in determining one’s interpretation of the sacred text or one’s belief in the truthfulness of the sacred text.

1. There is no claim here that evolutionism is good science — it is little more than junk-science totally unproven in the lab making wild alchemist claims about “birds coming from reptiles” and “eukaryote cells arising out of rocks, gas, liquid and an energy source”.

Thus there is no claim here that teaching science undermines the Bible.

2. There is no claim in any of the SDA documents listed that an evolutionist doctrine in favor of fictional origins for all the complex genomes seen around us today – has no impact on faith, doctrine or acceptance of the Bible.

in Christ,


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?

Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?

Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.

“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)

Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.

(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)

By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!


What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.

An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.

1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..

2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.

3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.

4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).

In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.

Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??

Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.

hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.

The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis

Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind