Comment on WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation by BobRyan.
You are not actually taking the time to think about what you are saying.
The upside down logic that would argue that a church run instition cannot be “run by the church” because to do so is to “deny religious freedom”, is not the kind of logic that lasts long in the light of day.
BobRyan Also Commented
Sean Pitman: I know you donâ€™t like the
fact that empirical evidence exists to support a rational faith in the credibility of the Bible.
Thus – believe in evolutionism would totally destroy Christian faith for the individual – as Darwin points out, as Dawkins and Provine and Meyer point out – and as Ellen White points out in 3SG 90-91.
Essentially “stating the obvious”.
But then we get this story in the form of facade from Kent –
This is a bizarre and completely misguided attribution, but it does raise an interesting contrast and an important question germane to how the Church relates to origins:
Sean Pitman: â€œI, personally, would have to go with what I saw as the weight of empirical evidence. This is why if I ever honestly became convinced that the weight of empirical evidence was on the side of life existing on this planet for hundreds of millions of years, I would leave not only the SDA Church, but Christianity as wellâ€¦â€
God: â€œBe still, and know that I am God.â€
My question: Does God want us to â€œknowâ€ Him by finding physical evidence to prove his existence, or through a personal relationship? Is either one alone sufficient for salvation?
And of course that nice story above works just fine until you recall just how far Kent was willing to state his case “in absentia” when it comes to the Romans 1 argument in favor of Intelligent Design.
In Romans 1 we are told that “they are without excuse” (even among the pagans) who “pretend” not to see the “invisible attributes of God” clearly seen “in the things that have been made”.
Where was Kent when it was time to stand behind the Bible on the subject of ID – when his friends and associates over at the big-left-tent chose to assail that Bible point both here and at that other board?
Did he “stand up to them” as he is trying to do with Sean in the supposed case he makes above?
Sadly – the history of posts in fact do not show any such thing to back up Kent’s story above.
None at all.
How instructive for the unbiased objective reader.
pauluc: @Greg: You say
Fair enough. I can agree with you on this. I definately think â€œthus saith the Lordâ€ comes ahead of science. If Pauluc rejects creationism, then that is unfortunate.
I certainly do not reject a doctrine of creation which I endorse entirely. My concern is that we must not read the bible with a mindset that imagines that it was written to satisfy our curiosity on mechanism in the physical world (which is the core role of science) rather that tell us about faith and the nature of God.
Do we in reading Deut 23:13 condemn all modern sewerage treatment strategies
Your claim that evolutionism is somehow creation is totally without support in fact.
Your claim that the Bible is not describing anything physical in the real world in Gen 1-2 when it gives us evening and morning for each DAY and also the THINGS that were created in each day – is so transparently flawed that it is doubtful your argument carries even one objective unbiased reader.
Why present such a weak case for your argument?
Sean Pitman: It is for this reason that professors at a WASC-accredited institution are only required to inform their students of the mainstream concensus on the theories of evolution. Thatâ€™s it.
Consensus in that context merely means that they can count more on one side than another. It does not mean all scientists are blindly drinking the evolutionist koolaide – though a few T.E.s like to imagine such things when they post here for “effect”.
As you point out – the “fact” that more official endorsements for evolutionism (in a strict popularity context) exist among scientists – than registered formal complaints against it — is a “given”.
It is among the few actual “facts” about evolutionism that is actually ‘seen to be true in real life’.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind