@BobRyan: Bob, I agree with you. I know you …

Comment on Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation by Ron.

@BobRyan:
Bob, I agree with you.
I know you don’t believe it, but I do. I was laughing at myself because I was going to highlight and quote the same paragraph you did until I saw that you had already done it.

“upon natural principles” Is this not a reference to science? To paraphrase, she is saying that you can’t use science to disprove that God is the creator. To do that is the worst kind of infidelity.

Now in my words, it is the worst kind of infidelity because it is illogical. How can you use the creator’s works to prove there is no creator? If you abandon all logic, then there truly is no hope. There is no rational basis for . . . . What? – – Anything.

But my point is slightly different. Assuming that we agree, that theistic evolution is the worst kind of heresy, the question becomes what to do about it when you see it in the church?

My point is that Mrs. White does not say, at least here, what should be done about it.

What I think you are advocating, is that we should create some kind of a test, and dis-fellowship everybody that doesn’t measure up.

I am saying that that approach
1. violates Christ’s direct command. Matthew 13:30
2. It doesn’t accomplish what you are hoping it will accomplish, (keep the church safe).
3. And it is the same method that was used by Roman emperors demanding that early Christian’s to just say a little prayer to him, so he would know they believed he was a god, or later with papal Rome, cleansing the church of heretics. The whole notion of trying to cleanse the church through any method other than prayerful study and reason ultimately results in abuse. That is why our church father, including Mrs. White advocated against developing a creed.

Ron Also Commented

Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
@BobRyan:

How much post creation evoltion is allowed?


Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
@BobRyan</

I never even implied a proto life or anything other than a six day creation. I am talking about what happens after creation.

Sean thinks that at least some Darwinian evolution takes place now. How does that happen?. Did god create the mechanisms originally, and they now happen atheistically, or does He continue to be active in the process?


Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
Sean, So I think I am hearing from you that a Biblical creation model would allow for basically any kind Is htof evolution there is, or which we might discover as long as it is destructive in nature, or is not too complex. is that right? You don’t believe that it is possible to believe that significant improvements are possible and still be a creationist.

Are you able to define that bounday between significant and minor theologically?


Recent Comments by Ron

Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation

Sean Pitman: No one is demanding that they “get out of the church”. . . . . anti-Adventist views on such a fundamental level.

You don’t see how characterizing a dedicated believer’s understanding of truth as “fundamentally anti-Adventist” would drive them out of the church?

I guess that explains why you don’t see that what you are doing here is fundamentally wrong.


Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation

Professor Kent: Nothing saddens me more than the droves who leave the Church when they learn that many of their cherished beliefs regarding this evidence don’t hold up so well to scrutiny.

I agree. I am sure that Sean and Bob don’t mean to undermine faith in God, but every time they say that it is impossible to believe in God and in science at the same time, I feel like they are telling me that any rational person must give up their belief in God, because belief in God and rationality can’t exist in the same space. Who would want to belong to that kind of a church?


Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation

Sean Pitman: and have little if anything to do with the main point of their prophetic claims

And by analogy, this appears to be a weak point in the creation argument. Who is to decide what the main point is?

It seems entirely possible that in trying to make Gen. 1 too literal, that we are missing the whole point of the story.


Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Regarding falsifying the existence of God through the miraculous:

While it is true that one can’t falsify the existance of God and the Biblical miracles at a philosophical level, it seems to me that it is possible to falsify it at a practical level. For instance prayer for healing. How many families who pray for a miracle for a loved one in the Intensive Care Unit receive a miracle?

While the answer to that question doesn’t answer the question of the existence of God at a philosophical level, it does answer the question at a practical level. After 36 years of medical practice I can say definitively that at a practical level when it comes to miracles in the ICU, God does not exist. Even if a miracle happens latter today, it wouldn’t be enough to establish an expectation for the future. So at a practicle level it seems it is possible level to falsify the existence od God, or at least prove His nonintervention which seems to me to be pretty much the same thing at a functional level.


Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Sean Pitman:
Sean, what is your definition of “Neo-darwinism” as opposed to “Darwinism” as opposed to “evolution”?