The movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, by Ben Stein, documented …

Comment on Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design by BobRyan.

The movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, by Ben Stein, documented several cases of scientists being attacked by evolutionist devotees within the scientific community for daring to suggest that “intelligent design” is a well observed fact in nature.

However this “advance to a higher plane of existence” idea has been around since the fall of Lucifer in heaven. Not sure it is going away anytime soon.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan Also Commented

Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design

August 26, 2010 @Sean Pitman:

Why try to make fun of my question?

Professor Kent says:

Because it’s fun.

Much of what Kent posts is just “gaming the point” – obviously. But in this case he has been a bit more transparently obvious than most. Kent is simply “gaming”. At times Kent’s “game” speaks to a topic worth highlighting – but often it is just a game for the sake of gaming.

It is important to wait until he has said something of substance rather than chase down every single dead-end rabbit trail Kent can imagine.

in Christ,

Bob


Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design

Kenneth Christman, M.D. says:
August 25, 2010

There are some very thoughtful questions, and I will attempt to respond to them.1. It is not at all surprising that the RCC would attempt to label Martin Luther as a Manichaean. After all, getting an accusation of this sort to stick would facilitate and quick trip to the stake. It would have dispensed with RCC’s problem quickly and easily. Why didn’t this accusation stick? Luther did not deny, as far as I know, that God created this world. To my knowledge, he did not subscribe to the doctrine of reincarnation.

Indeed. Having so many of Luther’s writings preserved for us – made it very difficult for the RCC to sustain their false accusations against him. He was helped not only by wide publication of his works but also by the fact that the government of Germany eventually organized a civil stronghold and defense supporting him.

Kenneth Christman, M.D. says:
August 25, 2010

Most importantly, perhaps, he did not deviate much, if any, from the RCC’s doctrine of transubstantiation. This was, as you are aware, the method generally used to test the Albigenses. If they did not concur with transubstantiation, they were burned. To this day, the various Lutheran synods adhere to something very near to the RCC’s doctrine of transubstantiation, with some degree of variation in teaching as well as terminology. One can only wonder why Luther did not challenge that very problematic doctrine? Was it because he fully realized that this kind of aberration would seal his fate? On the other hand, one could find a charge of mysticism to be a valid one. Luther was described as a Rhineland mystic. Furthermore, he stated that aside from the works of the Bible and St. Augustine, it was the Theologia Germanica which helped him the most to understand God and the human condition. What was Theologia Germanica? It was primarily a compilation of medieval mystics such as Meister Eckhardt and Johannes Tauler–very scary stuff, since one often finds New Agers turning to these folk. It should also be noted that RCC was not the only entity persecuting its theological foes. Martin Luther encouraged and condoned the slaughtering of the poor peasants in 1525.

Luther did not start out as a “Lutheran”. He was first and foremost a Catholic trying to reform the RCC in regard to indulgences and a few other items. In fact his initial thinking was that all the abuse in the RCC was being carried on behind the Pope’s back – and that if the Pope only knew of the problem he would thank Luther for helping him clean up the church.

It is not entirely surprising that he failed to expell some of his initial Catholic notions of compulsion and reading of the Catholic-mystics.

“According to the introduction of the “Theologia” the author was a priest and a member of the Teutonic Order living in Frankfurt, Germany”. Rumor has it that it may even have been Meister Eckhardt. How true that rumor is – I don’t know.

But Luther did not claim to get his 99 thesis from the spirits of the dead.

When the followers of Luther began to turn to fanatacism of the kind that Thomas Miuntzer promoted – Melancthon and Luther finally had to stand up and declare them to be wrong. Those that opposed the Lutheran reforms were more than happy to portray them all as “one” and even the fanatics claimed to be followers of Luther’s reforms.

Fortunately we have the writings of Luther himself to help sort that out.

I did find a Baptist author who completely disregarded all the other authors regarding the Albigenses heretical views, simply because he wanted to “prove” apostolic succession. Other Baptist authors, such as McGoldrick, however, warn against trying to prove apostolic succession via this route. Guirdham is worthy of consideration because part of his book is very scholarly and evaluates the extant literature about the Albigenses. The other part is mystical, and contains information regarding the spirit world, since he believes himself to be reincarnated!!

Which is why I think the 17th century historian Paul Allix’s own historical survey (as an Anglican scholar) of both the Waldenses and the Albigensis given as an official document to the Royal court of England is far more objective and being closer to the source (Paul apparently came from France to England) is an objective historic reference that cannot be easily dismissed. No “spirit guides” in the case of Allix.

In my prior post I also gave this objective independant official history by G. S. Faber (neigher Catholic nor Albigenses) – as yet another confirming source.

THE HISTORY OF THE ANCIENT VALLENSES AND ALBIGENSES
by George Stanley Faber

AN INQUIRY INTO THE HISTORY AND THEOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT VALLENSES AND ALBIGENSES;
AS EXHIBITING, AGREEABLY TO THE PROMISES, THE PERPETUITY OF THE SINCERE
CHURCH OF CHRIST.
BY
GEORGE STANLEY FABER, B. D.
MASTER OF SHERBURN HOSPITAL
AND PREBENDARY OF SALISBURY.

TO THE MOST REVEREND THE LORD PRIMATE,
And The Right Reverend And Reverend
THE BISHOPS AND CLERGY OF IRELAND,

THIS WORK,
Treating Of The Divinely Appointed Office And The Fully Corresponding Character Of The Two Ancient And Long Suffering Churches Of The
VALLENSES AND ALBIGENSES, Is, With Every Sentiment Of Respect And Admiration, Fitly Inscribed,

BY THEIR SERVANT IN CHRIST,
THE AUTHOR.

in Christ,

Bob


Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
Here is a 17th century example of an actual historian whose hands are not stained with the blood of the Albigenses and who is ALSO not a claiming to be a spiritist medium or reincarnated Cathar – but rather a 3rd party (Anglican historian) independant of both Catholic and Albigenses bias.

http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Church%20History/allix.html

P. ALLIX 1690 & 1692 [Scholar & Historian of the Church of England]

Amazingly enough – his official account to the royal court fits the description of the Albigenses given by Ellen White to a large degree.

This defense of the ancient Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont, is a kind of apology for the Reformation brought about in the century last past, in which those heroes of your name had so great a part. The Reformation, rightly considered, consists only in the rejecting of what for many ages has been superadded to the Christian religion. The conduct of the ancient Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont has served for a model to our Reformers, and has justified their undertaking, seeing they have always preserved amongst them the sacred truths of the Christian religion committed to them, as they had received them from the disciples of the Apostles, and rejected the corruptions thereof, according as by degrees they broke forth in the west.
This hath been the only thing that hath made them the object of the hatred of the Church of Rome, and hath drawn upon them, for so many ages, such prodigious floods of persecution

By contrast – here is one of many condemning sources totally in agreement with throwing the Albigenses under the bus – but even they are forced to admit that their information comes to them by the less than objective method of relying on “the perp” to be an objective unbiased “character witness for the victim”.

Of the more durable and formidable heresies which took stubborn root in the south of France during the twelfth century none is better known than that of the Cathari, being variously called Pataris, Poblicans, Bulgars, Albigenses. Their history, as already mentioned, is difficult to trace due to the fact that the only source of information available is the testimony of their enemies. The origin of the sect is very obscure and a number of often contradictory theories have been advanced

http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/additional/ListOfCollatedArticles/TheCathariOrAlbigenses.html

As it turns out – Fox’s book of martyrs tends to side with the report given to the royal court in the 17th century.

Here is another source that does not assume the POV of the perp has resulted in an objective or remotely accurate picture.
http://www.a4t.org/Library/History/faber-hava.pdf

But I trust, that not one of the Bishop’s positions is tenable. I trust, that the Paulicians and Albigenses will be found, upon sufficient historical evidence, to have not been Manicheans: and I also trust, that, upon
16
sufficient historical evidence likewise, the Valdenses may be distinctly
shown, to have tenanted their Alpine Valleys from the age of primitive
persecution, and to have always held a system of doctrine and practice,
the same, in all grand fundamentals and essentials, as that of the Reformed
Churches of the sixteenth century.
The proof of these matters will, of course, form the main part of the
following Inquiry.

In any case – the point is that I do not know that we have the conclusive evidence from either the Catholic Church’s efforts to “exterminate” them or the evidence of a source claiming to get information directly from the “afterlife” – are sufficient sources to disprove what Ellen White claimed to have been shown in this regard.

in Christ,

Bob


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
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!

george:
Gentlemen,

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