Comment on Readers respond to Adventist Review article by Lydian Belknap.
I was rereading some of the older comments posted on this site this morning and was absolutely shocked and dismayed by the way Ron Nielsen took my May 7, 2010 comment and APPARENTLY used it as a basis to support WHAT APPEARS TO ME to be just the opposite of my intentions. I do not say this as casting aspersion on Mr. Nielsen as a person. I am not his judge–only God is–and he has perfect freedom to state his views. I just wish he had left me and my comments out of the picture because I respectfully disagree with his position!
It is not the purpose or intent of this site to “advance the truth through coercion of the conscience.†I have been following these comments for many months now and I have yet to see any evidence of Sean–or anyone else responsible for this site–to do such a thing. They are standing for truth–and truth alone–and raw truth will always anger those teaching falsehood. But there just comes a time when falsehood must be pointed out and rebuked in order to defend truth–regardless of how it upsets those responsible for teaching falsehood. To me, that “time†is long overdue!
“Christian charity†cannot be used as a cloak to cover outright rebellion. (Remember how Jesus upturned the money tables in the temple?) Someone has to be brave enough to call sin by it’s right name! The time for a rebuke is NOW and I thank God for the courage of Sean and all the others who have the come forward to do just that–and in as kind and understanding a way as possible. This blatant attack on the very foundation upon which our church is founded MUST be met and stopped! (And as “unchristian†and “unkind†as it may seem to be to those advocating falsehood it is still “stealing†to accept a paycheck from any organization–whether religious or secular–that you are doing your best to destroy!)
To me anyway, the “unkind†people who are “weeping†over the work this site is trying to do are the truly “unkind†ones for they are apparently simply supporting those in open rebellion and strengthening their stand–which may, in the end, result in their loss of eternal life.
Lydian Belknap Also Commented
Readers respond to Adventist Review article
I simply cannot understand the attitude of many of our “leaders†who appear to be more interested in keeping the professors “ happy†than they are in the salvation of our young people. The only one of our “higher-ups†in the church (including Paulson) who seems to me to see any need to drastically change course is Mark Finley. (The way I see it, he should be the next president of the GC!) I am personally sick and tired of the brand of “lets all be Christians and treat these dear teachers kindly and lovingly†leadership we seem to have had for far too many years! (I am extremely grateful to everyone who has so courageously brought this situation to the attention of the laity so that our voices could be heard!! Thank you from the bottom of my heart!â€
Where are the leaders who “are not afraid to call sin by it’s right name?†Where are those who “will stand for truth though the heavens fall?†Where are those who “will not be bought or sold.†I can see nothing in the future but the “great shaking†Ellen White so vividly wrote about. This is not “some little thing†that can easily be taken care of. This is pulling the rug out from under our very foundational beliefs. Accept evolution and the whole structure of the SDA church falls..
I sincerely hope there are enough delegates at the GC session who have enough backbone to throw out the “money changers†as Jesus did so long ago. I don’t read anywhere of Jesus’ “kind and loving†treatment of these individuals. There just comes a time when the Achan’s in the camp need to be dealt with and dealt with speedily and vigorously. This may well be the “Omega†Ellen White said we would have to meet–the “iceberg†in our pathway. May God give us the strength do what has to be done in order to “save†our beautiful “last-day†church!
Recent Comments by Lydian Belknap
A New Endowment Program for Adventist Education
So here I sit–a “very old lady”–totally confused and not having a clue as to whether to donate or not–or where to donate if I should.
As things stand now I think I will just continue putting my own little amount to my current “missionary out reach” of buying “Steps to Christ” and “Who Do You Think You Are?” and passing them on to the clerks in the stores where I shop or other people I meet that I think would like them.
If and when you folks decide on what, how and where to help in this very worthy project let me know and I’ll do what I can then.
A New Endowment Program for Adventist Education
I just noticed that there is such a program in place in northern California but I would want one that is nation wide. After all, if our kids aren’t already in danger here in the southern union also (as well the rest of the US) it’s most likely only a short matter of time till they will be.
A New Endowment Program for Adventist Education
I am far from a wealthy person who could and gladly would donate large sums of money to such a program but I could and would gladly donate some if such assurances were solidly in place. I’m sure there are many “old folks” like me “out there” who feel the same way. (Is there already such a program in place? If so please post all needed information.)
The God of the Gaps
While browsing my rather voluminous file of articles to “save” I ran across this jewel—I think it is worth saving and thinking about–especially the last statement by Darwin himself:
**************************
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
While Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy — a plausible mechanism called “natural selection.” Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.
\
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – Slowly But Surely…
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, “…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.” [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an “irreducibly complex system”. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called “the hammer,” a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we’ve made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist
Michael Denton wrote, “Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.” [5]
And we don’t need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin’s day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” [6]
Footnotes:
1. Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” 1859, p. 162.
2. Ibid. p. 158.
3. Michael Behe, “Darwin’s Black Box,” 1996.
4. “Unlocking the Mystery of Life,” documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.
5. Michael Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” 1986, p. 250.
6. Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” 1859, p. 155.
****************
I don’t think Sean could have said it better himself!
Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
Sean, I guess I “bit off more than I can chew” when I subscribed to some of your other options.
All I can handle is the ^way it used to be”–like this column still is. Please put me back to this mode of information and I will be very happy. Thanks.
