Hi, Folks, This is what my friend Ken asks: I’d say …

Comment on The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist by Ron D Henderson.

Hi, Folks,
This is what my friend Ken asks: I’d say a bigger problem than LSU, is if the Church VP in charge Adventist education is saying the physical evidence of science is not congruent with biblical creation. That is what many of the scientists of the GRI were saying at GC.

The fact of the matter is,it is not that physical evidence is not congruent with biblical data. We miss the boat when we naively suppose that. In my research in science I have seen over and over again that any evidence can be interpreted or manipulated to testify to one’s presuppositions.

Also interpretation of evidence is always coloured by one’s presuppositions. Objective evidence is hardly objective; so many times we have messed up in the interpretation of the evidence simply because of our worldview.

For the SDA church to promote the findings of a so called Adventist biologist who is an evolutionist is utterly misleading and unconscionable. We have so many good scientists who do not accept evolution there is no need to promote these people as Adventists.

They should be dwelt with in terms of their commitment and loyalty to the beliefs of the church. Not that we are against any who believes in evolution; in no way. However, if one works for the SDA church then one has, is duty bound, to subscribe to our beliefs or quit.

That is the only honest thing to do. No one can be an evolutionist and remain an Adventist. That is a contradiction in itself. Evolution cannot harmonize with the plan of salvation; we cannot therefore harmonize ourselves with the erroneous view of evolution.

Even the non-Adventist Christian scientists, like Ken Ham, Dr. Morris, and many others, laugh at us for such ignorant compromise. It is time for us to pull up our socks and get things fitting properly.

Ron D Henderson Also Commented

The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist
Ken, I see you have missed my point. I never said that science cannot be empirical and that it must be biased. If you re-read what I said you will see that I am referring to ‘the interpretation of evidence.’ The issue is not science. As I said once, science is neutral. How science is explained is where the issue comes forward. We explain the evidences of science from our own worldview; especially do evolutionists try to hug the discipline as their sole jurisdiction. Those who do not agree with then are branded ‘ignorant,’ ‘religious,’ and so forth. I wish evidences were allowed to speak for themselves; but this is not permissible among the scientific community in our secular world. So while empirical evidence is fine in itself, sadly, the onlooker interprets it according to his worldview. Aren’t the great theories of Einstein being challenged today? I wonder why, Ken? Is it not true in our secular world, that when evidence points to God then that is religion and is unacceptable? but when it seems to point to the evolutionary model, then that is good science?!!


The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist
Hello, Folks,

Lest I be misunderstood let me clarify a statement I made in my previous post. The sentence is: “There is nothing in the fossil record that better highlights evolution than creation.” Sorry for the awkward clause. I meant to say that the fossil record does not highlight or support evolution in any way. Even Darwin admitted that the fossil record is the key to his theory. On the other hand, the fossil record supports creation much, much, more. There are no transitional forms found that are noteworthy(the few that are touted as transitional forms are just a bad joke). With the millions of different kinds of creatures that exist today and that existed in the past, there should be millions of transitional forms at every level to support them. On the contrary, those fossils found are all of complete forms that we know, or that may have existed. We must not and cannot allow scientists who call themselves Adventists to teach evolution as a fact in our institutions. They may believe what they wish; that is quite in order, but they are not honest when they teach these theories as though they were facts in our institutions they have pledged to uphold and support.


The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist
Hello,

Remember, Folks, the evidence is not the problem. It is our interpretation of the evidence that is the issue. The fossil record clearly shows that creation is on a better stance as regards origins than the evolution version of fossils. To the honest and fair researcher the evolutionary fossil record is really is actually worthless. If one believes in evolution then one has to, bound to, find fossils in the transitional forms. To date we have not found any. In fact, there should be more transitional fossil forms than complete forms as we see today. The millions of years, the gap theory, etc., make no sense whatsoever. There is nothing in the fossil record that better highlights evolution than creation. Creditable, good creation scientists have shown that evolution is just a theory. In my research I have not found the biblical data to be contrary to good science.


Recent Comments by Ron D Henderson

Beyond the Creation Story – Why the Controversy Matters
I see, Ken you are getting to know about our church; that is good. Let me say, Ken, I have never had any issue with Sean, barring that discussion on ‘reason.’ I do not know what Sean believes or teaches. I have never had any contact with him that I am aware of. I used to know a Pitman from the West Indies, I believe Grenada, years ago, do not know whether he’s the same person.

As regards prophecy, since you mentioned EGW and ‘worms of for food,’ there’s something known as ‘conditional’ prophecy where it will be fulfilled at the time delivered if all conditions are met.

For example, the case with Jonah and Nineveh in the Bible; God told him to tell those Ninevites that they will be destroyed in 40 days due to their wickedness. However, they repented and sought God’s mercy, so he accepted their repentance (that’s mercy) and postponed the destruction. The text brings this point.

There are other examples in the Bible of conditional prophecy. EGW’s reference you quoted falls in that category; had the brethren rallied to the cause and sought God as they should have done the prophecy would no doubt have been fulfilled.

The thing about the church, ours, is that we follow biblical teachings that as an organisation we have written down. When anyone strays from this then we take measures, as any other organisation, atheists, secular, or religious, does and is entitled to do. Our church does not morph or change to please anyone who might have some ‘bright’ ideas.

However, we do believe that, and have experienced, individuals arise and seek to change the structure and beliefs of the church; Desmond Ford is one you mentioned.

How do we know whether they are right or wrong, you ask? We test them by the biblical beliefs which the body of believers have agreed upon and have written down. Is it a matter of interpretation? Well, regardless, we subscribe to the interpretation that the body of believers as an organization hold in common. We believe that this is the biblical approach to take concerning ‘new light.’

Of course we also believe that ‘new light’ is in order and can be accepted by the organisation. However, we do that by having the appropriate groups study the issue, communicate with the rest of the organisation, and if they all agree, then we vote that practice or belief into our system of beliefs at the appropriate time when the church meets in plenary sessions.

We are also aware that along the road of any organisation apostasy, rebellion, or disenchantment does arise. We have experienced, and are experiencing this in the church.

But we believe that God will guide the church through to the end, so we encourage members to stay on board in spite of the rebellion or apostasy of others. Hope this sheds some further light for you.

Everyone is free to believe whatever he or she wishes. However, if you join a body of believers, and are baptised, you are bound to continue in the beliefs you have previously ascribed to.

You may have other thoughts, that’s fine; but if you teach these, and they are opposed to what the church believes and teaches, then you create an obstacle that in the end will destroy your membership if you persist in teaching and promoting those beliefs.

Again, this is the normal procedure for dealing with people who try to turn their church, their organisation, their club, or whatever entity, unto another path or direction. This procedure of dealing with such individuals is a biblical injunction.

Cheers my friend,

Ron.


Beyond the Creation Story – Why the Controversy Matters
Ken! I appreciate your point as always; and as always I have a counter to make. This situation in our church is an ongoing episode though out the annals of historical time. Men arise with erroneous views arise and seek to destabilize, subvert, and destroy the very organisation that gave them birth and future. It is not new. Protests are in order, as was Luther’s and the reformers. Your comparison with Camping is actually out of place, however. Certainly he cannot be likened to Behi, and others who have spoken out against the scientific organisation of which they are part. And certainly science will not die due to protests of others-be it good or bad. What you do not know, my friend, is that this church will survive, as will science, simply because God is in charge. The same God which to you at present is but a mist. We speak what we know and have experienced. Soon you will hopefully understand this point!

Ron.


Beyond the Creation Story – Why the Controversy Matters
Correction on the texts in my previous post. That should be Job 11:7 and Ps. 132:5 should be removed. Thankfully I could reason that one out!


The Adventist Accrediting Association is Still Reviewing LSU
Let us not forget that God is in charge of this work and of his church. And yes, we do suffer for our negligence, procrastination and compromise. But God is still in charge. If the men at the helm of his church on earth are delinquent and refuse to rock the boat, then they will be removed in His good time. In the mean while we must be faithful and do all in our power to correct the situation in our sphere of control, regardless of the ‘feelings’ of the ‘peace, peace’ lovers in the church.


Eugenie Scott’s Letter of Alarm – “Evolution Under Attack”
It tickles me no end to see educated men and women defending, supporting, chaos; spending thousands of dollars in educating themselves into a black hole in which there is no purpose, rhyme, nor reason for its and their existence! There absurdity is king. There purpose, goal, design and beauty are dethroned and the nebulous and fortuity are co-regents! What’s even more amazing is that this simpleton of ideology is used by the arch-deceiver to befuddle men and women of planet earth. I surmise that once one separates oneself from the Source of true and pure knowledge idiocy and chaos take the limelight! Praise God that we can be the children of the Light!