@Robert Bamford: I don’t think you have proved your point …

Comment on LSU Faculty Senate supports biology department by Ron.

@Robert Bamford:

I don’t think you have proved your point that they are teaching it in opposition to creation. I haven’t seen anything so far that would support that assertion.

And I don’t think calling science “junk science” is helpful to the discussion. What is needed is real science that would support an alternate interpretation, however “creation science” seems to be getting weaker while evidence for evolution increases everyday.

Ron Also Commented

LSU Faculty Senate supports biology department
@Ron Henderson:

That might send a mixed signal, since some may be holding their Tithe until the denomination takes a firm stand for truth, and freedom of thought, and against witch hunts, falsifications, and censorship.


LSU Faculty Senate supports biology department
@Wayne Matlock:

Matt, I think part of the answer is in the text you quoted, 1st John, “test the spirits” and “hold on to what is good”. What is the spirit of this web site? It it the spirit of Faith? Reason? Tolerance? Grace? Forgiveness? Freedom? Truth?


LSU Faculty Senate supports biology department
@Richard Gates:

Richard, I respect your love for the Lord and your miraculous experience. Unfortunalty Science is not founded on the Bible. It is founded on careful observation of the natural world. Until there is credible evidence for creationism, it belongs in the theology department, not in the science department.

The problem with this whole discussion is that it fails to deal with the simple fact that we see evoution occuring around us everyday. Not millions of years ago, but NOW, in the laboratory today. Until you can harmonize what you read in the Bible with what we observe in science, the premise of this web site has no reasonable foundation. You can’t expect a few biology teachers to do what the whole denomination has been unable to do in the last 166 years. And not just Adventists, but the whole Christian world. Don’t you think Catholics and Baptists and Lutherans would like to disprove evolution too? Of course they would. Until you can, I think is unethical to ask our faithful God fearing Biology teachers to teach something that has no scientific foundation.

The other premise expressed on this site, that evolutionism somehow destroys the value of the Sabbath, or Adventism, I am unwilling to grant. It certainly doesn’t for me.


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”?