@Eddie: I agree with these points. It would be …

Comment on Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers by Sean Pitman.

@Eddie:

I agree with these points. It would be great if our schools would finance researchers who support a Biblical model of creationism and are active in trying to publish papers in science journals… such as Leonard Brand or Arthur Chadwick. Unfortunately, I’ve recently heard that Leonard Brand, in particular, is struggling to find funding to support active creation research. I’m sure he would appreciate any financial support he can get.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
@Eddie:

Dr. Roth is not as far above the “fracas” here as you might imagine. 😉

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
@Ken:

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.

The science behind ID is indeed a very important bridge for a form of objective inquiry as an initial step toward finding God. After all, one must first believe that an intelligent designer of some kind must be responsible for various features of the universe before one can consider that perhaps a God or God-like being might have been responsible. And, one must then recognize that God actually exists before one can strive to have a personal relationship with God. It’s a stepwise process for many people.

Now, consider carefully what our friend Wes Kime is suggesting before you dismiss Adventism in general. Dr. Kime is suggesting that the objective evidence does not end with the discovery that ID is rationally required to explain certain features of the universe. There is also objective evidence to suggest the actual identity of the Designer – that the Designer of the universe and of life on this planet is in fact an omnipotent God who is personally interested in you and me.

It is in this sense that Adventist education should be in advance of secular education which has yet to even make the first rational step toward God by recognizing the need for any kind of designer behind any aspect of the universe in which we live. Harvard science professors are still struggling with the notion that mindless naturalistic mechanisms can explain it all. Adventist professors should not only have taken this step already, but should be well beyond the first few steps in finding God and in their ability to present evidence for His existence, identity, and character to their students… to include credible evidences for the Biblical perspective of origins.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
@Ken:

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.

I’m perfectly fine with the promotion of intelligent design within our own schools. However, I would not be entirely satisfied if ID is all that is presented in our own schools. After all, many IDists believe in millions of years of evolution of life on this planet with a little bit of ID thrown in. This is not the SDA position and should not be presented as the best we have to offer in our schools. Also, I’m not fine if only a single person or “chair” of intelligent design is presenting the evidence for design, even God-like creative power, behind certain features of nature. I personally believe that all staff teaching at all Adventist schools should be promoting intelligent design as a first step toward God as well as other evidences available detailing the actual identity, nature and character of God and the evidence for the Biblical perspective on origins.

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…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.