Well, Jeff, would it work better for you if we …

Comment on The Reptile King by David Read.

Well, Jeff, would it work better for you if we just closed the biology and religion departments? I’m open to that as a possible solution.

David Read Also Commented

The Reptile King
Poor Larry Geraty! He can’t understand why anyone would think him sympathetic to theistic evolution. Well, for starters, he wrote this for Spectrum last year:

“Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.”

“Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference.”

So the traditional Adventist interpretation of Genesis is an “extra-Biblical interpretation” put forward by “the fundamentalist wing” of the SDA Church? What are people supposed to think about Larry Geraty’s views?

It is no mystery how LaSierra got in the condition it is in.

The Reptile King
Professor Kent says:

“I don’t do ‘orgins science.’ Not a single publication on the topic. I study contemporary biology. Plenty of publications.”

So, if you did science that related to origins, you would do it pursuant to the biblical paradigm, that is pursuant to the assumption that Genesis 1-11 is true history, correct?

The Reptile King
Larry Geraty really did a job on LaSierra. Personally I think it is way gone, compromised beyond hope. The SDA Church should just cut its ties to LaSierra, and cut its losses.

As to the discussion on this thread, round up the usual suspects and their usual arguments.

Recent Comments by David Read

La Sierra University Resignation Saga: Stranger-than-Fiction
It is a remarkably fair and unbiased article, and a pretty fair summary of what was said in the recorded conversation.

My Goal for La Sierra University
Regardless whether one is or isn’t horrified by the ID movemant’s “wedge strategy”–using design science as a wedge to get theism back into the public schools–it is irrelevant to LaSierra, which is a private, church affiliated school.

It is a bit surreal to watch a conversation unfold in which people are saying that Intelligent Design must not be taught in a private Adventist school, because some people want to get theism into the public schools.

My Goal for La Sierra University
If, as Jeff Kent contends, Intelligent Design is not science because science cannot verify the cause of an event that happened thousands or millions of years ago, then Darwinism is not science either. If science cannot verify whether something is designed, it can’t verify whether something is not designed.

Pick your poison.

My Goal for La Sierra University
Jeff Kent says, “Some like you may need your ‘evidence’ to believe, but many, like Christ’s apostles, can have a vibrant spiritual life without it.”

This is really the heart of my disagreement with you and Phil. Setting aside your bizarre contention that Christ’s apostles, who witnessed Him raise men from the dead, and who saw Him after his own resurrection, believed without evidence, I agree completely that God’s word can be trusted apart from evidence. But it also helps to understand that the data of nature are consistent with what is taught in God’s word. As Sean and I understand the data of nature as it relates to origins, it is consistent with the Bible’s narrative of origins. It is at least as consistent with special, recent creation as it with Darwinism and other gradualist theories.

However, if students are taught that all the data support Darwinism, only a very small minority of them will continue to believe the Bible’s origins narrative by faith (nearly) alone. The overwhelming majority will end up believing exactly as “LSU Alumni 1996” believes: that the Bible’s origins story is just a myth, whereas Darwinism is true history in the real world. The evidence that this will be the outcome is simply overwhelming. Most people do not have the ability, as you and Phil seem to have, to believe two contradictory narratives at the same time. What will inevitably happen is that the church will move away from its historic position on origins, and toward theisitic or even atheistic evolution (as “LSU Alumni 1996” claims has already happened with the majority in Southern California, and he may be right). For every one who continues to believe God’s word by faith (nearly) alone, ten will defect to theistic evolution or atheism.

No, my friend, the course that you and Phil suggest is not the one the church should pursue. If it does, it will in the end be suicidal for the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

My Goal for La Sierra University
“Phil is speaking to criticism of scripture, not science.”

I know, Jeff, and I think his opinion that apologetics and/or creation science amounts to biblical criticism is goofy. Try to keep up with the conversation.