Comment on GYC Q&A addresses universities who hire and protect evolutionists by Nic Samojluk.
The church has several options in dealing with this chronic and seemingly intractable problem. Here are some of them:
1. Require that the LSU stop presenting the theory of evolution as the only credible explanation of origins and balance it with the creation alternative, including the presentation of the serious weaknesses which beset the Darwinian views.
2. Abandon our Adventist fundamental belief in a literal six days creation as a credible explanation for origins, and replace it with a naturalistic view of what happened at the beginning.
3. Cut our financial and denominational connection with La Sierra University and transform it into an independent ministry similar to 3ABN and The Quiet Hour. This will allow LSU to do their own thing without any interference from those who believe in the story of creation found in Genesis.
I vote for either solution # 1 or # 3. Actually, I am more inclined towards the last solution. The problem is rather chronic and probably hopeless. The roots of the Darwinian deception are rather deep, and this cancer has spread to even the religious department of the school.
There is no known treatment able to eradicate this type of cancer; not even a proton cure will be able to produce a miraculous cure! Any effort to solve the problem will serve only to prolong the agony. If LSU is interested in supporting any other facet of the church’s work, let it do so as an independent ministry.
Table of Contents
Recent Comments by Nic Samojluk
A “Christian Agnostic”?
@Sean Pitman:
Sean PitmanNovember 23, 2011 at 8:57 am
“How do you know? You said that you considered God’s existence to be “likely”. Isn’t the word “likely” a statistical/scientific term based on at least some ability to actually demonstrate the odds of a hypothesis being correct?
This is my problem here. How can you say that something is “likely” when, at the same time, you say that you have no empirical evidence for what you say is “likely to exist”? – no more evidence than you have for mythological fairytales?
You see, it is your use of the phrase, “likely to exist” that doesn’t make sense to me since it appears, at least to me, that you’re being inconsistent with yourself.
If you have no positive evidence for God’s existence, and if everything that you do know appears to you to have a mindless natural cause, how then can you say, one way or the other, that the “first cause” was “likely” an intelligent God-like being vs. some other mindless natural process? Upon what basis do you make this claim?”
*********
Sean,
Thanks for this impeccable logic. I appreciate the clearness with which you demonstrate the role evidence plays in providing support for our faith.
Faith without evidence places us at risk of becoming victims of charlatans and those who have been deceived by the Devil.
Sure, there is evidence for and against a belief in God and Creation, but the weight of evidence favors the biblical teaching that God is the one who created everything that exists.
We do owe our existence to him alone and he is entitled to our worship. The moment we credit Nature for our existence, we fall prey to the artful deceptions of the one determined to destroy our faith.
A “Christian Agnostic”?
@Sean Pitman:
Sean PitmanNovember 15, 2011 at 7:01 am
“@Nic Samojluk:
I think that Bob’s answer was superb, yet ten bloggers voted his comments down. Is the voting system rigged somehow?
The voting is not rigged. It is just that people tend to vote from the hip for or against a comment, before actually reading it, based only on who wrote it – not what was actually said in the particular comment at hand.
This also happens on Talk.Origins – and pretty much all discussion forums. I did an experiment once where I re-posted a comment from a well-known evolutionist under my own name (on Talk.Origins). There was no end to the ridicule against the comment based simply on the assumption that I had actually written it. When I pointed out that I had not actually written the comment, that it was written by one of their own, the attempts at back-peddling were quite hilarious
I’m sure the same thing would happen here as well. That is why the allowance of “voting” for comments is really only a curiosity feature “just for fun” and really has little meaning aside, perhaps, from keeping track of how many people from opposing camps are actually following a particular thread.”
*********
Thanks, Sean. You are so right! Perhaps I should pay less attention to the number of votes posted next to bloggers’ comments!
Back to Square One…
What happened to all the postings dated November 9, 10 and 11?
A “Christian Agnostic”?
@BobRyan:
BobRyan November 11 2011 at 6:11 pm
In this case we are talking about complex houses not just a cube – complete with embedded nano-tech capable of self-repair – self-healing, auto-paint-updating etc.
Something like this…
v=GVqJdAqTD4Q&feature=related
When your fellow atheists and agnostics view that in a moment of objectivity – they respond something like ABC News did when it reported on it…
And in this case – those houses would be found all over Mars. And the observing agnostic friend might be tempted to claim “well then complex houses of that sort must occur naturally in the rocks and sand of Mars — err… umm… somehow, because there are sooo many of them”.
For the rest of us – it would be a sign of Martians – very smart ones.
*********
I think that Bob’s answer was superb, yet ten bloggers voted his comments down. Is the voting system rigged somehow?
Eddie,
I must be a prophet. As I predicted, my previous responses directed at you were deleted, probably before you had a chance to read them. It would be foolish for me to repost them.
Since you are already familiar with my own web site, you will find the same material I used to answer your comment there. Look for my most recent entries and let me know what you think. Use my own web page for answering instead of Educate Truth.
