Eddie: First, although I know of some professors on my …

Comment on NCSE Report: Adventist Education in the Midst of a Sea of Science by BobRyan.

Eddie: First, although I know of some professors on my campus who have liberal views on various subjects, I don’t know for certain that any of them actually promote their views as “truth” to students. I have learned that some professors on my campus are theistic evolutionists, but none of them teach a course in which the subject is discussed in the classroom. …

Second, professors who refuse to publicly condemn heretical colleagues shouldn’t be accused of “doing nothing.” Do you seriously think any student would respect a professor who publicly criticizes a colleague in the classroom or on a website?

1. Your first paragraph describes a scenario where NO Theistic evolutionism at all is being promoted. If LSU was confined to that context – Professor Bradley could never have made the frank and honest statements to the contrary that he made to higherEducation on that subject.

Furthermore – no student could have complained about blind-faith evolutionism promoted as if it were true and this whole website would not even exist.

2. Your second point addresses the issue of the LSU scenario where professors are going behind parent’s backs – promoting theistic evolutionism “and proud of it”.
But not so proud apparently as to want it known among the parents.

You appear to argue that exposing those people would not be a respectable thing to do. Certainly I would agree that it is not politically correct – but is it really something we should not respect? Lets apply some critical thinking to that subject.

I assume that as an SDA educator you are well informed on the famous – much published “no longer consent to listen” statements about Battle Creek.

For years our physicians have been trained to think that they must not give expression to sentiments that differ from those of their chief. [Reference is here made to Dr. J. H. Kellogg, for many years the medical superintendent of the Battle Creek Sanitarium.—Compilers.] O that they had broken the yoke! O that they had called sin by its right name! Then they would not be regarded in the heavenly courts as men who, though bearing weighty responsibilities, have failed of speaking the truth in reproof of that which has been in disobedience to God’s Word. …

My message to you is: No longer consent to listen without protest to the perversion of truth.

Unmask the pretentious sophistries which, if received, will lead ministers and physicians and medical missionary workers to ignore the truth. Every one is now to stand on his guard. God calls upon men and women to take their stand under the blood-stained banner of Prince Emmanuel. I have been instructed to warn our people; for many are in danger of receiving theories and sophistries that undermine the foundation pillars of the faith. {1SM 196.2-196.4}

Could this be spelled out any clearer than the above statement?

in Christ,


BobRyan Also Commented

NCSE Report: Adventist Education in the Midst of a Sea of Science

I seriously doubt a vice president of the GC, the president of SAU and a former president of PUC would agree with you.

The president of SAU may not be entirely inline with either the GC 2010 vote on FB #6 rewrite or the direction of this web site – that is a given.

The GC has many Vice Presidents and the fact that one of them might differ with the views of this web site is not as shocking as some might imagine. Division on this subject goes to the GC level. That is a given.

The past presidents of PUC include pro-theistic-evolutionists – how difficult is it to imagine that one of them might differ with some of the views on this web site?

We have stated many times that elements arguing for and defending T.E. include not only the T.E’s themselves – but also creationists who reject the 3SG90-91 view that this is the worst form of infidelity and that action should be taken to stop it from being established inside Church teaching institutions.

in Christ,


NCSE Report: Adventist Education in the Midst of a Sea of Science

I frankly do not care if they say who they are or not when sharing views.

I only ask that they share their real views and take the points seriously.

in Christ,


NCSE Report: Adventist Education in the Midst of a Sea of Science

It is true that this is not the place to see an argument “won”. It is merely the place to find a good list of the details behind each side of the argument and then make up one’s own mind on the subject.

in Christ,


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case

Mack Ramsy:: : but the one thing we know for certain is that it was designed to change. There are so many back up and redundancies designed to make whatever changes that DNA faces to be profitable for the organism, or if their deleterious to ensure they don’t damage the subsequent generation (yes there are very complex methods for doing this) The immune system in fact does it intentionally.

Obviously the references above to “designed” and “intention” could not be overlooked by the objective unbiased reader applying a bit of critical thinking to the topic. And so my response below merely states the obvious point of agreement on a part of that post.

No wonder the application of a bit of critical thinking just then – demands that we conclude from your remarks above – that you are an example of an evolutionist that is strongly in favor of Intelligent Design. I too favor I.D.

Mack Ramsy:
Obviously the references abov

I don’t believe in ID as it’s traditionally defined. I believe that God created a system designed to evolve.

Obviously the references abov
In your earlier statement you claimed that system was designed with “redundancy and backup” features. That is not something rocks, gas and water could ever do – hence the term “Intelligent Design”.

But perhaps you have access to more highly advanced rocks, gas and water?

Also you mention “intention” as if the immune system was deliberately designed with an end goal in view.

As it turns out – it is those “intention” and “Intelligent Design” aspects (so key to your response above) that are at the very heart of I.D. enabled science were we have the freedom to “follow the data where it leads” even if it leads to a conclusion in favor of design that does not fit atheist dogma about there “being no god”.

how odd then that you seem to later back pedal on your prior observation.

Thus you seem to be in somewhat of a self-conflicted position at the moment.

At least given the content of your statements about “intent” and “backup systems” and “redundancy” designed into the systems themselves (even to the point of “error correction” as we see in the case of nucleic polypeptide amino acid chains and their chiral orientation).

Of course all that just gets us back here

Mack&#032Ramsy: My language in this forum is not formal. Try not to get caught up in semantic issues.

Out of curiosity is that statement supposed to provide a solution to just how it is that something “not designed” is able to exhibit unique design characteristics such as “back up systems” – “redundancy” – error correcting mechanism and an “immune system with intention” regarding a specific outcome or goal?

No doubt the study of biology most definitely shows us that such things are present “in nature” based on “observations in nature” – and so you are right to state it as you did.

So if you are then going to double back and reject what you just affirmed – what do you have by way of “explanation” for such a self-conflicted course?

Reaching for a solution of the form – “Pay no attention to my actual words if they do not serve to deny I.D.” does not provide as satisfactory resolution to the problem as you may have at first supposed.

in Christ,


Strumming the Attached Strings
@David Read:

Erv Taylor is not “afraid” to post here – but he is “Afraid” to have well thought out views posted on AToday that do not flatter his agenda.

That was not news right?

in Christ,


Michigan Conference vs. LSU – Right Wing Politics or Truth in Advertising?
@John J.:

John&#032J&#046: The fact remains, any decision direction or policy made by a church, conference, union or GCEC can be reversed or changed by those they serve.

Agreed and the fact that the constituency are not voting to reverse it – is a sign that this is not merely the views of the Administration in Michigan.

As for hierarchy – there is no doctrinal authority in the administrators.

And as for administrative hierarchy – the GC leadership has no authority to dismiss rogue teachers which is one of the reasons that this particular meltdown at LSU seems to go on and on and on. It slows at times and it speeds up at other times – but the fire is not simply put out.

in Christ,


A “Christian Agnostic”?

ken:: Let’s continue shall we. You posit that Adam and Eve were producing telomerase as adults as a result of eating fruit from the tree of life. Would you agree that the production of adult telomerase was a direct result of the environment or did the gene(s) affecting production of the a enzyme as adults mutate in their progeny?

1. I never stated whether the fruit from the Tree of Life provided the telemerase enzyme or simply provided a trigger enzyme/protein that caused Adam and Eve to produce Telemerase. Either way the end result was the same.

2. The salient point is that we have a known mechanism that affects the aging of cells starting with new borns.

This is simply “observation in nature” given in response to your question about an observed mechanism in humans for the 900 year life span the Bible mentions.

It is hard to “do the study” without having them under observation.

1. But it is not hard to see the gradual decline in ages over time.

2. It is not hard to see the Bible declare that access to the Tree of Life was the determining factor.

3. It is not hard to see that even in humans today – the ability remains for us to produce telemerase – but we quickly lose that ability.

4. It is not hard to see what effect that has on the telomeres of infants.

The list of knowns for this mechanism are far more impressive than the “I imagine a mechanism whereby static genomes acquire new coding genes not already present and functioning in nature and that this happens for billions of years”.

Ken: Hi BobWe are making good progress!Thanks for your admitting thaf we do not have Adam and Eve or their progeny under observation to do the study.

My pleasure.

Let’s look at the empirical results of your observation. There is no physical evidence that the progeny or descendants lived to 900 years, right? Thus there is no physical evidence that the tree of life provided longevity through the increased production or activation of telermerase right?

There is evidence that a mechanism does exist whereby access to an enzyme would in fact affect the aging process of human cells.

That mechanism is observed in nature to be related to the enzyme Telemerase.

There is a ton of evidence that food contains enzymes and proteins and that the human body can produce enzymes in response to the presence of trigger proteins and enzymes.

It is irrefutably true that humans still today produce telemerase in the case of infants just before birth. Impossible to deny it – though you seem to want to go down that dead end road.

You asked about the “mechanism” that can be observed today that would account for long ages of life recorded in the Bible.

You now seem to be pulling the classic “bait and switch” asking for the video of the people living for long ages before the flood.

Nice try —

As I said before – your method is along the lines of grasping at straws in a true “any ol’ exuse will do” fashion.

in Christ,


SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
Rev 21 does not say the planet has no light – it says the City has no NEED of light from the Sun.

The inconvenient deatils point to the fact that the New Earth will have a Sun and Moon but the New Jerusalem will have eternal day due to the light of God’s presence.

This is not the hard part.

in Christ,