Stephen Bohr, On page 5 of Reflections on the Creation Evolution …

Comment on Reflections on the Creation Evolution Debate by Eugene Shubert.

Stephen Bohr,

On page 5 of Reflections on the Creation Evolution Debate, you said, “In my next newsletter article I will deal with the providential origin of our denominational name and how it is a standing rebuke against pantheism, intelligent design, progressive creationism, punctuated equilibrium and the theory of evolution.”

What is your complaint against Intelligent Design?

Also, on page 2, you quoted this excellent statement by Ellen G. White:

“The warnings of the word of God regarding the perils surrounding the Christian church belong to us today. As in the days of the apostles, men tried by tradition and philosophy to destroy faith in the Scriptures, so today, by the pleasing sentiments of higher criticism, evolution, spiritualism, theosophy, and pantheism, the enemy of righteousness is seeking to lead souls into forbidden paths. To many the Bible is as a lamp without oil, because they have turned their minds into channels of speculative belief that bring misunderstanding and confusion. The work of higher criticism, in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation. It is robbing God’s word of power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives.” Acts of the Apostles, p. 474

I’m only aware of a few exposés that touch on the spiritualistic philosophies that are now being embraced by Seventh-day Adventists. Have you noticed the similarities in the spiritualism of Dr. Helen Schucman versus the message of A. Graham Maxwell and have you ever compared Maxwell’s pantheism to the pantheistic sentiments of John Harvey Kellogg?

Eugene Shubert Also Commented

Reflections on the Creation Evolution Debate

Christiane Marshall: I just noticed all the talk about intelligent design. Isn’t intelligent design the thing we have in common with others? That intelligent design is part of our belief, but just not all of it?
It’s like saying that it is wrong to say that someone painted the Mona Lisa. But maybe the person doesn’t know that Leonardo daVinci painted it. My daughter wouldn’t know, but would she be wrong to say ’someone’ painted it?

Hi Christiane,

That’s exactly my understanding of Intelligent Design. Atheistic scientists don’t like that argument because they say its sole purpose is to prove the existence of God and that a “Goddidit” theory about anything doesn’t explain anything about science. I must confess to believing that the atheistic argument against ID is scientifically plausible and perhaps logically consistent. For that reason, I’m persuaded that believing scientists should argue that there is only a probability that the Mona Lisa was intelligently designed and that maybe molecules just magically assembled themselves to create this work of art.


Reflections on the Creation Evolution Debate

Cheng: @Eugene Shubert:
I believe that Stephen Bohr is correct in saying that true Adventist Creationism is a rebuke to the concept of intelligent design.

Can you name a few true, living, Seventh-day Adventist creationists that are professional scientists that also repudiate Intelligent Design?

Here are two quotes on intelligent design:

“It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.” – Numbers, Ronald L. (2006). The Creationists, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. pp. 373, 379–380

So your understanding of science is that we must not only assume the existence of a designer but we must also assume that the Designer has the specific nature and identity of God as perceived by Seventh-day Adventists? Or is merely assuming the generic Christian God of the Old and New Testament good enough?

“But this approach, even if well-meaning and effectively articulated, will not work! It has often been tried in the past and has failed, and it will fail today. The reason it won’t work is because it is not the Biblical method.” – Morris, Henry M. (1999) “Design is Not Enough!” Back to Genesis. Santee, California: Institute for Creation Research. http://www.icr.org/article/859/17/. Retrieved January 1, 2010.

And what is the Biblical method for legitimate scientific research?

So basically, the flaw in intelligent design is that there is no saving power contained within the gospel of Christ present. It’s almost as if the argument for ID is avoiding what matters the most—the solution to our sin problem.

I don’t believe that atheistic scientists will be willing to abandon the historic definition of science and adopt your definition, any time soon. How do you propose persuading them?

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/science


Recent Comments by Eugene Shubert

Perspectives from alleged LSU students

BobRyan:
… the LSU evolutionists are employing a “foxhole mentality” among their student devotees – convincing them that it is “us against the rest of the Adventist church and against Adventist administrators that simply pay lip service to Bible creation”.

That is essentially correct. There are two sides to every issue. The dispute here is between science and the Bible. The scientists believe that science should be taught in science class. The opinionated non-scientists that reject science and have no clue what it is, are content with either replacing science with pseudo-science or just getting rid of the teaching of science permanently.


Perspectives from alleged LSU students

BobRyan:
Since you have offerred no response to points raised – the point remains.in Christ,Bob  

I already presented the mathematical response: “The odds for any particular sequence of 100 flips of a coin is 1/2^100, which is not zero.”

Do you agree or disagree with the mathematics?

The rest of your attempt to articulate a thought about science is barely intelligible. If you wish to be understood, please write with precision in a scientifically discernible form. I do not understand lowbrow diction. Please learn and use the universal language of science.


Perspectives from alleged LSU students

Stephen Vicaro:
Eugene, Now we know your true ambitions!

No, that part isn’t clear. But we do know your rank and the rank of your associates in The Seven Faces of Seventh-day Adventism.


Perspectives from alleged LSU students

BobRyan:
In the case of the coin flip we have 100 very likely events (50/50) in sequence and by adding the statistics of “sequence” to the probability – we get “NIL”.

You’re speaking gibberish. “NIL” means “nothing; naught; zero.” The odds for any particular sequence of 100 flips of a coin is 1/2^100, which is not zero. And your expressed method of computation, “by adding the statistics of `sequence’ to the probability” is unabashed gibberish and demonstrates that you have absolutely no understanding of the science of probability theory.

You obviously feel great peace when unbelievers curse God because of your willful stupidity.
Are you proud of being a contributing influence that justifies unbelievers in their rejection of Christ?


Perspectives from alleged LSU students

Richard Sherwin:
Eugene so it is only scientists who can have the truth? Science is now superseding the Bible? Are you listening to what you are saying? You are saying that science is God!

It is as Steven Weinberg has said: “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

In other words, “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” (Ro 2:24).

So grow up and stop practicing deceit.