Comment on Educate Truth’s purpose and goals by Ken.
Re Professor Kent’s quote
“Shane,
Your story here is the finest piece of writing I have seen from you, and you have done a very nice job of summarizing the purpose of EducateTruth. I still have some major issues you have not addressed.
Would you or someone please explain to me why the topic and the “staff†here so often stray well beyond the LSU biology issue? Why do we have to read the ad hominen attacks, for example, on other SDA university presidents, including Dr. Gordon Bietz, the President of Southern Adventist University, and individual Geoscience Research Institution scientists like Dr. Clausen, Dr. Nalin, and Dr. Gibson? From all appearances, these men are strong supporters of SDA beliefs, yet they have been very publicly denounced and subjected to many would consider to be harsh and unfair criticism.
I think it’s obvious to all that at least one staff member is quick to disagree with and criticize many moderates and conservatives, and has most certainly go so far as to suggest that some of these individuals be terminated (i.e., fired). I suggest, Shane, that you and this individual need to get on the same page–and not just on your shared understanding of the equivalency of science and religion.
– Professor Kent
Dear Professor Kent
Thank you for all of you comments which I have followed with great interest. The battle between you and Sean Pitman has been epic to say the least!
Respectfully, I do not agree with your advice to Shane for him to get on the same page as (Sean, I presume?). If he does that as editor of this site then he, in my humble opinion will demonstrate a bias that will sully the open nature of this forum.
As an agnostic I have been treated with respect and consideration on this forum, for which I am most grateful. Dare I say, without any offense to any specific individuals, I have been treated better than some SDA YEC’s are treating themselves!
Shane has done himself, the SDA church, and all participants of this forum a great service by letting everyone have a voice, except when attacks become too personal. Even though the narrow issue is the teaching of evolution at LSU, this naturally leads to the profound issue of the nature of origins. That, in my humble opinion, is worth digressing upon as it foments a search for the greater universal truth. A truth by the way that goes well beyond ‘our’ egos and defensive postures.
Even though I am in fundamental disagreement with the position of the SDA, I have gained great benefit and appreciation for the SDA’s position as a result of this forum. I credit that to Shane’s editorial stewardship.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Table of Contents
Ken Also Commented
Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
Re Shane’s Quote:
“@Ken: First one would have to assume that the Bible is a revelation of God’s will and of himself. The Bible claims to have a divine origin and that all it’s writer’s were inspired of God. I submit that this is a believe it or reject it situation. I don’t believe you can rationally reject parts of scripture as divine and yet maintain that the Bible has eternal worth. So ultimately we must accept the claims of the Bible or reject them.” – Shane Hilde
Dear Shane
That makes eminent sense. Of course the problem arises when competing holy books claim they are right to the exclusion of others. That’s why Sean,rightly I suggest, proposes that there must be empirical, tested evidence to test the veracity of the Bible versus other world views. Truth can stand being tested, dogma can’t.
Sean intuitively understands that the ongoing credibility of the SDA faith must withstand rational scrutiny. Power to him, he is appealing to the universal rational mind and in doing so I think doing a great service to the SDA. Although I don’t agree with his conclusions, I do agree with his methodology because he holds no fear of science.
I would like to know however why he disagrees with Ben Clausen’s findings on the age of the earth. Sean, what is your scientific basis for doing so?
Respectfully, I think it is as pointless to demonize mainstream science as it is to ridicule the SDA faith. Honest debate is what is needed. People of good will come from all sorts of points of view. That’s the virtue of Sean’s concept of the Royal Law of Love. It bars no one. That strikes me as a noble principle
Best Regards
your agnostic friend
Ken
Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
Re Sean’s Quote
“We ourselves have to determine if God is in fact who He claims to be.”
Dear Sean
Or if He claims to be and how He claims to be?
Regards
Ken
Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
Re Ron’s Quote
“Human reasoning†as a higher “truth†than God’s Truth is exactly what this problem is about. Those that choose this should not be teaching in our SDA Schools.”
Hi Ron
Does it take ‘human reasoning’ to understand God’s Truth? Who decides what is God’s Truth? Ultimately if it is God, then no man, or woman, has that franchise, right?
For example, it is apparent from the Educate Truth website that there are fundamental differences of opinion, even among SDA YEC’s, on biblical interpretation. Take Sean’s espoused Royal Law of Love, which would result in good men, irrespective of belief ending up in heaven. Many of you disagree with that position. So what is God’ Truth on that issue and who decides? You, me, Sean, others, God?
Respectfully I think you will have to apply your ‘human reasoning’ to these questions.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Recent Comments by Ken
God and Granite Cubes
@ Sean
I enjoyed your article. As I’ve stated before, I think Intelligent Design is a more modern form of Deism and do not think it is irrational. However, as science on an ongoing basis shows what matters are explainable by cause and effect, less is attributable to conscious design. The question of course is what are the limits of science in this regard? For example, will it ever be able to explain First Cause/
Below is a more fulsome quote of Professor Townes, an self acknowledged Protestant Christian. Please note what he has to say about literal creation and evolution. Do you think he is being more reasonable than you on the nature of design?
“I do believe in both a creation and a continuous effect on this universe and our lives, that God has a continuing influence – certainly his laws guide how the universe was built. But the Bible’s description of creation occurring over a week’s time is just an analogy, as I see it. The Jews couldn’t know very much at that time about the lifetime of the universe or how old it was. They were visualizing it as best they could and I think they did remarkably well, but it’s just an analogy.
Should intelligent design be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in schools as religious legislators have decided in Pennsylvania and Kansas?
I think it’s very unfortunate that this kind of discussion has come up. People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there’s no evolution, no changes. It’s totally illogical in my view. Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.
Charles Townes
‘Faith is necessary for the scientist even to get started, and deep faith is necessary for him to carry out his tougher tasks. Why? Because he must have confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mind – in fact his own mind – has a good chance of understanding this order.’
-Charles Townes, writing in “The Convergence of Science and Religion,” IBM’s Think magazine, March-April 1966
Some scientists argue that “well, there’s an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.” Well, that’s a postulate, and it’s a pretty fantastic postulate – it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that’s why it has come out so specially. Now, that design could include evolution perfectly well. It’s very clear that there is evolution, and it’s important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they’re both consistent.
They don’t have to negate each other, you’re saying. God could have created the universe, set the parameters for the laws of physics and chemistry and biology, and set the evolutionary process in motion, But that’s not what the Christian fundamentalists are arguing should be taught in Kansas.
People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they’re saying, “Everything is made at once and then nothing can change.” But there’s no reason the universe can’t allow for changes and plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one. Maybe that’s a bad word to use in public, but it’s just a shame that the argument is coming up that way, because it’s very misleading. “
Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote
“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…”
Hello Sean
First of all, thank you Holly for your comments. You have always treated me with civility and charity for which I am most grateful.
Secondly, on reflection, I do hope I was not strident or offensive in my recent remarks. I am a guest here and should behave with the utmost respect regarding my Adventist hosts. After all I was proposing the Chair of ID at an ‘Adventist’ institution! What gall and temerity from an agnostic!
However something Dr. Kime said struck a very strange chord in me: that a Chair in ID at Harvard would be a quantum leap ( forward – my edit) while such a Chair would be a step backward at LSU. I’ m very sorry Wes, but for me to honestly investigate reality such double standard is not acceptable.
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. (apologies Mr. Hawkings). Oh Wes , perhaps I am ontological Don Quixote after all, comically tilting towards immovable Adventist windmills. 🙁 .
However all is not forlorn because I’ve made excellent friends of the heart here. ;). I won’t forget you.
Good luck in your pursuit of God.
Goodbye
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Wes’s Quote
“. But for a Christian, a great devolution, a great recidivation, a tragic forfeiture, foreclosure, worse. If I were to use the vocabulary of some of our recent posters, I’d not put it as delicately.”
Hi Wes and Sean
I just read again portions on ID from Sean’s website Detecting Design. I am very confused by both of your responses. Why the heck is Sean promoting ID as a scientific theory if this is such a Christian retreat? Perhaps you two differ here? I apologize if I am missing the obvious but I see a tremendous disconnect between what Sean is saying about ID and what he is prepared to do to promote it within the subset of Adventist education.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote
“Public association is one thing. Private association is another. While many do not feel at liberty to publicly associate themselves with our work here (for obvious reasons), most who still believe in SDA fundamentals (and who are aware of the longstanding situation at LSU and other places) feel that our work in providing enhanced transparency for what is being taught to our young people in our schools was/is necessary on some level.”
Hi Sean
The irony here is that those that are supporting institutional enhanced transparency are hiding behind cloaks of anonymity. That’s not how you, I, Wes, Bob Ryan, Wes, Bill Sorenson and many others here behave. Imagine if Jesus hid behind a cloak and didn’t proclaim his nature. What legacy of respect would he have left?
Conviction requires courage period.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Intelligent Design
Gentleman, thanks to all for your fulsome replies.
Yes Wes, I remember your cogent analysis of November 14/11. I appreciared it then and its reiteration now. indeed I was waiting to hear from others especially Sean whose site is named Detecting Design. And, here I agree with Bob, ID
does not necessarily rule out any particular design i. e. fiat
creation ot theistic evolution.
But quite frankly I am disaapointed with Sean’s response, not Sean himself for whom I have deep admiration, because I see this as a step backward. Why? Because if you burn the bridge between science and biblical faith it will not be science that suffers.
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.
Yes Wes, I understand why Adventists are nervous on this issue. But if one is seeking the truth about reality one can’t wall it in or burn bridges of enquiry. Wes, perhaps the Hellenic maxim should have not so much: Know thyself, but rather Think for thyself. My park bench in Pugwash is a welcome one but does not feature ontological dividers. It is well designed for truth seekers.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
