Comment on La Sierra Academy students weigh in on creation/evolution debate by BobRyan.
There is very good evidence for a recent creation of all life on this planet. There is also extensive evidence in support of the Divine origin of the Scriptures. Taken together, this data/evidence is strongly supportive of the validity of the literal creation week described in the first chapters of Genesis.
That is true when you consider that there is no science today that defines or describes a way for planets to form and life to appear through strictly natural means in a short time frame such as the YEC model of the Bible describes.
Also you make a good point that trust in the Bible as the Word of God – had to have been mastered long before we came to the subject of evolutionism. The objective exercise of selecting the Bible as a trustworthy reliable document had to have been established to even Believe in the Christian God vs atheism, to pick the Bible over the Koran or to select the Bible over the Bhagavad Gita.
Sean said: “One need not rely on blind faith in this regard”
That is certainly a true statement.
BobRyan Also Commented
It is our faith in the Bible, which will all be worth it in heaven, that is our only reason to believe. You know full well that if there was evidence for a 6 day creation those professors would be teaching
1. There is no evidence at all that “birds come from reptiles”
2. There is no evidence at all of abiogenesis – anywhere in any site on planet earth.
3. There is no evidence that higher life forms come from lower ones.
The alchemy of spontaneous generation making its big come-back via neo-darwinian guesswork is the same fiction today that it was the first time around.
Yet a few faculty members at LSU are head over heels – trying to evangelize for that junk-science religion every chance they get.
There is a public university missing a professor or two –
If in fact they â€“ or other students in the class were inclined to think of Godâ€™s statement on origins in that way â€“ was there an effort in the class or in some class to address the concerns that the students had? Something along the lines of â€“ â€œwell since it appears that there is some concern among a few of our class members that the Bible position on origins may be lacking when it comes to actual science â€“ we have come up with a helpful â€œscience and the Bibleâ€ program that we will focus on to help address those concernsâ€ â€“ ?
For example 2 areas of helpful focus might be
1. Demonstrate that the Bible text cannot be bent to support evolutionism and still maintain strict adherence to Bible exegesis â€“ letting the text speak for itself.
2. Demonstrate the need for â€œcritical thinkingâ€ and provide proven junk-science efforts by evolutionists in the past to hoodwink the general population with what is now confirmed and proven fraud and misdirection.
3. Demonstrate the difference between what atheist evolutionists like Collin Patterson claimed are â€œstories easy enough to make up â€¦ about how one thing came from anotherâ€ to prop up evolutionism â€“ based on the fossil record â€“ vs â€œactual scienceâ€.
4. Help students focus on the salient goals of evolutionism in both the areas of abiogenesis and also the macro results where â€œbirds come from reptilesâ€ â€” fiction on the part of evolutionists never seen in nature, never observed in the lab.
Of course we address the issues and concerns from all angles. My lesson plans are very thorough and complete, filled with opportunity for â€œcritical thinkingâ€ and self reflection. These boys were not reflecting their own opinions, they were demonstrating how they thought the non-Creationist community views our beliefs. The whole unit addressed these issues.
As I stated in my response to Shane, the video was not the complete project. In fact the video was not the assignment. These boys took it upon themselves to demonstrate how they believe the world looks at creation. I think they did a good job. As Creationists and as Christians we need to live the love of Christ on this earth and be the joy that is Christ or the â€œworldâ€ will view us as hypocritical and silly.
As Christians we have a responsibility to understand what we believe and why.
Then it must be frustrating to see your creationist-believing students going off to LSU only to get evolutionism force-fed as if “you cannot go into the field of science” if you do not “believe in” evolutionism.
(Getting back to Jordan’s point).
Have you had time to reflect on that – to explain the athiest-centric components to the doctrine of origins promoted in evolutionism and to warn them that they will face this not only in public universities but also in a few of our own Adventist universities?
In public universities Adventist students may simply choose to excuse professors for their ignorance about God’s view of origins, but what about those students who might face that problem at LSU – how did you prepare them for that?
Did the lessons, the tools, the skills, the exercises that you gave them anticipate the more difficult problem of fully compromised ADventist professors demanding that the students accept that the Bible is wrong?
E.G. White says in D.A. p22 that â€œForce has no place in Godâ€™s plan.â€ I teach this to my students. God does not force us in to the kingdom or into the SDA fundamental beliefs. We have a responsibility to live in reflection of the kingdom that is to come, and in so doing we offer each other encouragement. My students leave my classroom knowing that Jesus is their Savior and that the SDA church welcomes them into its membership if they choose.
Indeed – we can all choose to be born-again Christians and follow the truth instead of embracing rebellion against God’s Word – against the One who says He “IS the way the TRUTH and the Life”. No question about that.
No worries Bob, I prayerfully offer hope and truth to my students within the SDA required curriculum for Academy students. This Creation/beliefs unit falls in the Senior year as they prepare to â€œface the worldâ€ outside our protective classrooms.
Glad to hear that !
My concern is that parents and students that leave our Academy settings considering them to be “our protective classrooms” just “might” think of Seventh-day Adventist LSU biology classrooms as a continuation of “our protective classrooms” only to find that they are getting full-on public university indoctrination into believing in the atheist-centric views on origins promoted as the right answer for origins with Adventist professors pronouncing that the Bible is wrong “as if that was a good thing”.
There are classes within the science department that do teach evolution, and then there is the religion department which teaches a recent creation. So it can be said that there is an equal balance of creation and evolution ideas. If one does not like the views shared in the science department, and cannot accept some of the facts presented, than the department is not for you and there are plenty other classes that you can take at LSU.
In that fiction – the “balance at LSU” consists of the science department being fully opposed to the religion department – (meaning the religion department should have started “educatetruth.com” a long time ago). But as the religion department’s own Fritz Guy has pointed out in published statements – there is no such thing as the LSU religion department not embracing evolutionism as the right answer for origins.
And in the chaos proposed above – the solution is that students “should not go into the field of science” if they agree with the Bible instead of with the atheist-centric doctrines on origins being preached by evolutionist evangelists employed by the LSU biology deparment.
Even more “instructive” is that the model above exposes one of the unique distinctives of having evolutionist evangelists operating from inside the biology department of an Adventist educational institution. You can model for your Adventist students the example of being a fully compromised yet respected and affirmed Seventh-day Adventist thought leader, when it comes to the doctrine on origins – just in case those students imagined that Seventh-day Adventists cannot also embrace evolutionism.
Hmm .. how “instructive” for the unbiased objective reader.
I (know) for a fact that not all the religion professors at LSU endorse a literal six day creation in the recent past. The dean of the school of religion doesnâ€™t even believe the biblical account of creation. Iâ€™m sure he believes in a creator God, but not one who did it recently and in six days.
The university claims to endorse the churchâ€™s position, but yet employs professors who do not. Thus someone wanting and Adventist world view taught in the science classes cannot get what theyâ€™re paying for. Youâ€™re right though they should go somewhere else.
Indeed – as we also saw when Walla Walla encountered this same problem in years past – both departments typically get on the same page when evolutionists gain enough of a foothold to come out in public in their promotion of evolutionism at one of our universities.
Here is a quote from LSU web site says this about the school of religion. Look for the part where the religion department claims to support the mission and doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist church.
The School of Religion is committed to providing general religious studies for all students in every part of the University. Based upon the central Christian belief in one God, Creator of the world and Redeemer of mankind, these studies explore the Bible as the inspired Word of God, provide instruction in Christian faith, examine the history and mission of the church, and offer guidance for the Christian life.
Email the Dean of the School of Religion John Webster or the administrative assistant, Suzy Kaspereen.
Now curiously enough, when Jordan’s definition of “balance” consisting of a religion department fully opposed to the biology department’s doctrines on origins at LSU does not turn out to be factually correct, we are treated to the explanation of why “that too” is a good thing.
In a sense I am glad that not all of the religion teachers (or any teacher at LSU for that matter) believe in the same exact things. How would that get students to go and find the truth for themselves if they are force fed what the SDA church believes. This is the college level where students should be allowed to question and be challenged by new thoughts and ideas while still being protected within the realm of christian morals and ethics. By not allowing students to ask questions and search for truth themselves how does one gain knowledge and grow as an individual?
If you cannot see that the diversity within LSU is a good thing than you have completely lost sense of true religion, and it is the unity within the diversity thats separates this college from any other. True religion is an acceptance of everyones thoughts and ideas, however wrong they may be. The minute you can accept that, the discontent you have with LSU will fall away.
Jordan has helped the reader see the direction this is going. The self-conflicted Universalist Unitarian concepts of “every idea is ok and is promoted” is being offerred up on the one hand – while “bible is totally wrong” is to be accepted as an absolute mandate in the LSU biology deparment.
It is truly facinating to watch just how far this evolutionist program is taking the argument!
Now comes the approval of the goal of LSU being “the best public university that Adventist tuition, tithe and offering dollars can buy”
This is the part NOT at all unique to LSU among it’s sisterhood of public universities.
The process of hearing something that doesnâ€™t match up with what you believe drives you as a student to see what the differences are, thus making the student wiser.
The science professors never say in their class that, â€œthis is what you should believe and creationist ideas are completely wrongâ€ instead they present the material (which students need to know if they wish to do anything within the field of science) and say â€œthis may not be what you believe but you must make your own opinion on it.â€
As already noted – that “benefit” can be gained at every vanilla public university in the land for half the cost.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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