Comment on The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist by Ken.
Re Ron’s Quote
“Objective evidence is hardly objective; so many times we have messed up in the interpretation of the evidence simply because of our worldview.”
It is always great to hear from my wonderful friend Ron Henderson! It was Ron, who on a park bench in Nova Scotia four summers ago, got me introduced me in Adventism.
Respectfully, the problem I have with Ron’s approach that science can never be empirical and most be biased. I don’t accept that.
Doesn’t science over time continously give humanity a better understanding of reality? Can’t one simply have a neutral worldview and view science as an objective means to better understand reality? Do we really think the laws of gravity are biased because Newton happened to be a Christian? Is it only Adventist scientists that strictly adhere to FB#6 that clearly discern empirical evidence?
These rhetorical questions are not meant to disparage faith, just differentiate it from the rational, objective empiricism of science.
That is why I applaud Dr.Pitman’s attempt to provide empirical means to prove biblical creation. He acknowledges the problem of circuitous logic -the Bible tells me so- to prove FB#6 creation. To be credible to the modern educated mind this proposition must be supported with empirical evidence.
Look at the comments of the GRI scientists. This is an Adventist, not a secular institute.
Look at the comments of Dr. Jean Simmons a VP of the Church. She doesn’t work for ANN, she was just interviewed by them.
From my outside view I opine that you have critical, institutional differences of opinion on creation that are causing credibility problems for your faith. I’m not sure, as my friend Ron Henderson suggests, that other Christian scientists are laughing at you, but I think your doctrinal leadership is in disarray.
Respectfully
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Table of Contents
Ken Also Commented
The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist
Dear Lydian
I always enjoy your posts, especially their humananity, which gives great flavour to our doctrinal stew.
If the kind editors will so permit, I want to wish you and all mothers out there the very best Mother’s Day.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist
Re Ron’s Quotes
“Ken, I see you have missed my point. I never said that science cannot be empirical and that it must be biased.”
“We explain the evidences of science from our own worldview;”
Dear Ron
Actually Ron, I could not understand your point more clearly or emphatically. The moment humans start viewing science from the perspective of faith or non faith it becomes biased and fraught with a lack of objectivity. Better to just observe and test and leave issues of God or lack thereof to philosophy or faith.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist
Hi Bill
What do you think of Harold Camping’s biblical interpretation?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Recent Comments by Ken
Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
Hi Bob
I asked once before and I’ll ask again: what is your background and expertise in biology?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Creeds and Fundamental Beliefs
Re: What every human being on the planet believes?
Empirically, as i don’t have blind faith I could know this, perhaps it could only be a divine being that could do so. 🙂
Always open to correction though to those that know the absolute truth,
I remain,
Your agnostic friend
Ken
A “Christian Agnostic”?
Re Bob’s Quote
“But we can “observe” that the making of complex systems (and books, and works of art and science) is done by “creators” every day – observable, repeatable, testable. A mechanism proven to work.”
Hi Bob
Thanks for your comments.
This may surprise you but I’m actually intrigued by the design argument. My Dad is a Deist although I’m not of that bent, at least not yet! The laws of nature, i.e. gravity, that even allow the universe to exist are pretty marvelous. Did they arise as a result of a random quantum fluctuation or was their Grand Designer behind it all. If so what is or was the nature of such designer based on what we empirically observe about our universe?
The problem I have with intelligent design within our universe and especially regarding life on earth is theodicy. I do understand how the concept of original biblical sin accounts for the loss of perfection, but I have a very tough time understanding why a God would cause such destruction of his creation based on the disobedience of the literal eating of an apple. I just can’t rationally fathom how the eventual and natural demise of our solar system can be based on Man’s fall. Empirically, through science we can now view the death, and birth, of stars. Was this all caused by eating forbidden fruit?
Thus one must ask: why would a good, compassionate God create a Universe, and sentient life, that suffers and dies? Age old problem, that in my estimation has been allegorically resolved through the Genesis narrative.
Let’s move on to evolution. Micro evolution does not seem to be a problem for anyone. Life does adapt to its environment through genetic change. In my mind the issue becomes what happens over billions of years. After considering everything I have read to date I cannot honestly see an overwhelming case for a young earth. Moreover I have not read or heard anything yet that such a view can be scientifically supported by anyone without a biblical creationist bias. Given enough time great change will occur as evidenced by the vast diversity of life spread over every niche of our planet. Were there kangaroos on the Ark, or did they evolve in an isolated part of the world from whence they could not spread?
I don’t think evolution is a fraud or a hoax. Too many educated people of faith believe and accept it for it to be an atheist conspiracy. Have their been mistakes made and will they continue to be made? Are there dishonest scientists? Certainly. They are fallible humans, just like you and I, after all. But the issue is what does the weight of all the multidisciplinary evidence indicate?
Hope that helps
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote
“Yes, I am suggesting that our scientists should also be theologians to some degree. I’m also suggesting that our theologians be scientists to some degree as well. There should be no distinct dividing line between the two disciplines…”
Hello Sean
First of all, thank you Holly for your comments. You have always treated me with civility and charity for which I am most grateful.
Secondly, on reflection, I do hope I was not strident or offensive in my recent remarks. I am a guest here and should behave with the utmost respect regarding my Adventist hosts. After all I was proposing the Chair of ID at an ‘Adventist’ institution! What gall and temerity from an agnostic!
However something Dr. Kime said struck a very strange chord in me: that a Chair in ID at Harvard would be a quantum leap ( forward – my edit) while such a Chair would be a step backward at LSU. I’ m very sorry Wes, but for me to honestly investigate reality such double standard is not acceptable.
I am sad today, because I think I’m coming to the end of my Adventist journey. I really did see ID as a sort of bridge between your faith and objective inquiry about a ‘Grand’ Design. (apologies Mr. Hawkings). Oh Wes , perhaps I am ontological Don Quixote after all, comically tilting towards immovable Adventist windmills. 🙁 .
However all is not forlorn because I’ve made excellent friends of the heart here. ;). I won’t forget you.
Good luck in your pursuit of God.
Goodbye
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote
“Public association is one thing. Private association is another. While many do not feel at liberty to publicly associate themselves with our work here (for obvious reasons), most who still believe in SDA fundamentals (and who are aware of the longstanding situation at LSU and other places) feel that our work in providing enhanced transparency for what is being taught to our young people in our schools was/is necessary on some level.”
Hi Sean
The irony here is that those that are supporting institutional enhanced transparency are hiding behind cloaks of anonymity. That’s not how you, I, Wes, Bob Ryan, Wes, Bill Sorenson and many others here behave. Imagine if Jesus hid behind a cloak and didn’t proclaim his nature. What legacy of respect would he have left?
Conviction requires courage period.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
