Comment on My Goal for La Sierra University by BobRyan.
The interesting issue is how do we minister to those members in the Seventh-day Adventist Church who are ignorant about science and the relationship between science and religion. These are possible approaches to take:
For once we agree on something~!
I too am concerned about those people. I am convinced that if we had paid more attention to their confusion and befuddlement – they never would have gone to the horrible confused extreme of becoming T.E.’s
So I have some suggestions
1. We can resist harboring the assumption that these Church members are unteachable.
(I regret that I have until now chosen to ignore some T.E.’s under under the assumption that they dont have a mind that can grasp what I am talking about.
What persuades me that this approach is untenable is that as Seventh-day Adventists we have an obligation to witness to others.
Jesus ministered tirelessly to everyone. And to assume that someone is inherently incapable of understanding something is uncharitable and dismissive.
2. We can be diligent in correcting misunderstandings. The comments posted by several T.E.’s here reflect the level to which they simply do not understand the glaring difference between junk-science and actual science. They simply do not understand that simple point that you cannot wrench-and-bend the Bible everytime evolutionism tells you that birds come from reptiles – not other birds.
I believe in the biblical account of creation as traditionally understood. Which means if you are looking for what happened “IN nature” then you are looking at a real 7 day creation week less than 10,000 years ago.
I believe in the Seventh-day Adventist method for doing theology. (Many T.E.’s may not understand that we do have a method for doing theology that includes the Historical Grammatical hermeneutic for rendering the text instead of just bending the text every time an evolutionist needs it bent).
By seeking recognition of the fact that Intelligent Design is observable in nature (as God Himself states in Romans 1) such that it is observed even by atheists and pagans who “have no excuse” for pretending otherwise, I am in no way denigrating Intelligent Design or Romans 1 (even though I.D. is not very compatible with the atheist doctrine on there being “no god”.)
There is no offense intended by placing by-faith-alone affirmations of evolutionism in the category of junk-science and “bad religion” where it belongs.
Indeed, I believe that truth lies in the theological/philosophical realm as well as the realm of science – if that science is not being coopted by evolutionist dogma about there being “no god”.
I like most atheist evolutionists and Bible believing Christians – (and Ellen White as it turns out) see the glaringly large gap between the doctrine on origins taught by evolutionism and that which we find in the Bible.
But I recognize, as I must, that evolution theory is at present more popular than the pure science of I.D. just as Sunday keeping is more popular than Sabbath keeping.
What some T.E.’s may not understand is that there is not to my knowledge one serious Church leader or theologian who disagrees with me on these points while holding to the GC2010 vision on origins voted by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. (Not to mention many other Christian organizations who have the same view).
3. The third approach that may be helpful is to request a Church leader or theologian whom everyone respects to carefully explain the issues.
Ted Wilson, Mark Finley, Clifford Goldstein, Dan Jackson, Doug Batchelor, would be helpful in this regard.
4. The fourth approach is to be longsuffering and patient with these T.E. church members. It is not difficult to properly teach an Adventist university student about science and the relationship between science and theology as long as you are not drinking evolutionism’s junk-science koolaid. In fact we can even teach 16 million Church members that in fact “birds come from birds” and not reptiles.
As challenging and as difficult as this may seem to some of our T.E. friends.
5 The fifth approach is to emphasize the probative value regarding what the Bible says about origins. Not only should there be increased study of the biblical account of creation but also the hermeneutical approach to Scripture formally endorsed by the Church and known today as the Historical Grammatical model. Where the text is allowed to speak for itself instead of being bent and wrenched to serve the dictates of outside agendas such as evolutionism.
I hazard a guess that less than one percent of all T.E. Church members understands the chiastic structure of the Genesis creation or the basics of exegesis.
If greater education were provided in these areas, the hysteria and confusion brought on by our T.E. friends would quickly abate and schools like LSU would right-themselves in no time. Adopting a model that embrace actual observed science – rather than constantly promoting “stories easy enough to tell – but they are not science”.
There may be other suggestions that can be offered. And we should be aware that despite our best efforts not everyone will fully understand. But if they do, then their understanding of the issues and their spiritual development will be greatly enhanced.
in Christ,
Bob
Table of Contents
BobRyan Also Commented
My Goal for La Sierra University
Lev 18 is pretty clear on the nation-destroying activities that some people think are “just fine” –
In Lev 18 the point is made that even non-Bible-aware pagan nations will accelerate the close of their period of probation by engaging in certain sins.
My Goal for La Sierra University
channel: if you can’t see that perhaps that is why you do not have the capability to understand science
Seems to affirm the comment Charles makes below…
Charles: @channel:
The spirit behind this post is self-evident and needs no comment. It plainly speaks for itself.
oops! I think we were supposed to pretend not to notice 😉
Oh well – I guess this is not the big-left-tent some had hoped it would become.
in Christ,
Bob
My Goal for La Sierra University
Holly Pham: Bob, So Dr. Taylor teaches at LSU? Why was he allowed to teach? Who was responsible for him getting a teaching job? I think that is absolutely shocking!
I note that after your question – Taylor immediately posts his affirmation of ad hominem posting on this web site — when in fact he could have stepped up to the plate and addressed your question himself.
In the mean time you can find the fact of his overt statement on evolution
http://www.educatetruth.com/media/puc-professor-the-noachian-flood-was-just-a-local-flood/comment-page-3/#comment-22005
Ervin Taylor said:
November 14, 2010
“The time has come to take a clearly stated position and abandon all Orwellian language. Transparency is a must, and that is something we do not have.â€You want transparency? How about this?
“The Genesis narratives about “the beginning†are the sublime creations of a powerful literary and spiritual impulse which talked about the Hebrew God creating the entire world and everything in it in six days.
Although the focus of attention for whoever wrote and/or edited these magnificent creation narratives was not about these specific points, the ancient Hebrews believed that these narratives said plainly that the world was created in six, 24-hour days, that the events related were real events and they were about real people and they all happened in the time frame that we would call less than 10,000 years ago–which to the Hebrews was a very long time ago.
The Hebrews also believed that the world was flat and fixed in space. We now know that the world is round and moves in space. We also now know that God created the world and life over billions of years.
The primary reason that the Adventist faith tradition officially must support the ancient Hebrew world view about “the beginning†is because Ellen G. White believed that
and incorporated that idea into her master metanarrative—the Great Controversy.â€Is that “transparent†enough?
… Once a specific theological idea—such as a recent creation in seven, literal, contiguous days—gets grafted onto and encoded within a theological metanarrative or world view, it is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, for a faith community to admit that some misunderstandings about the details of that metanarrative is, from a factual perspective, wrong, even in the face of massive, empirical evidence to the contrary. This is especially difficult if its founding prophetic figure was responsible for creating the problem.
And as for his participation in the LSU “all evolution all the time” agenda posted on Educate Truth.
ErvTaylor lecturing for LSU on age of life on earth and Carbon 14 – in the Biology 404B class.
http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/syllabi/unstuhnr-404b-spring-qtr-2009-syllabus/
And of course – Kent claims this does not happen at LSU at least not for 1.5 years.
in Christ,
Bob
Recent Comments by BobRyan
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
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.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:
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”.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
Gentlemen,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.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
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.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
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
