Professor Kent: I don’t want to fence with you about science, …

Comment on La Sierra and Battle Creek College by David Read.

Professor Kent:

I don’t want to fence with you about science, but I wonder why you are so opposed to the whole concept of making arguments to support our faith. What is motivating you? What is your overall philosophy about this?

I’ve had my arguments with Sean about faith and science, but he’s certainly right that Christians have never held to a “blind faith” position. We’ve always sought to support our faith with reasoned argument. There’s even an ancient term, dating back to the second century of the Christian era, for this body of literature: apologetics. More recently the field of Christian apologetics has included a defense of the doctrine of creation as against Darwinism. There is a long and robust tradition of this within Adventism as well as within the larger Christian Church. Neither the field of Christian apologetics, nor the more narrow field of creation/evolution apologetics is at all new, recent, novel, or out of the ordinary. It is all business as usual.

Why are you so opposed to a systematic effort to defend the SDA position on origins, which you claim to subscribe to? Why do you think this effort should not be part of the job of SDA science teachers who teach classes that deal with origins at SDA schools? At a minimum, shouldn’t such teachers refrain from undermining SDA beliefs at SDA schools? Why is this such an unreasonable thing to ask? How can the Adventist Church survive if its own purpose-established colleges argue against the pillars of its faith?

Again, there is long tradition of reasoned defense of faith, and I am curious why you are so vehemently determined that this tradition should be terminated, at least at Adventist colleges.

Recent Comments by David Read

The Reptile King
Poor Larry Geraty! He can’t understand why anyone would think him sympathetic to theistic evolution. Well, for starters, he wrote this for Spectrum last year:

“Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.”

“Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference.”

So the traditional Adventist interpretation of Genesis is an “extra-Biblical interpretation” put forward by “the fundamentalist wing” of the SDA Church? What are people supposed to think about Larry Geraty’s views?

It is no mystery how LaSierra got in the condition it is in.


The Reptile King
Professor Kent says:

“I don’t do ‘orgins science.’ Not a single publication on the topic. I study contemporary biology. Plenty of publications.”

So, if you did science that related to origins, you would do it pursuant to the biblical paradigm, that is pursuant to the assumption that Genesis 1-11 is true history, correct?


The Reptile King
Well, Jeff, would it work better for you if we just closed the biology and religion departments? I’m open to that as a possible solution.


The Reptile King
Larry Geraty really did a job on LaSierra. Personally I think it is way gone, compromised beyond hope. The SDA Church should just cut its ties to LaSierra, and cut its losses.

As to the discussion on this thread, round up the usual suspects and their usual arguments.


La Sierra University Resignation Saga: Stranger-than-Fiction
It is a remarkably fair and unbiased article, and a pretty fair summary of what was said in the recorded conversation.