Beyond the Creation Story – Why the Controversy Matters
Re Ron’s Quote

“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.”

Hi Ron

That was a fine response.

I endorse your church being a democratic institution when it comes to change in doctrine. Those of you that are standing up for the FB 28 have every right to do so, until they are democratically changed.

Your agnostic friend
Ken

---

Beyond the Creation Story – Why the Controversy Matters
Re More reflection on Wes’s Quote

“But, seriously, my dear and ever dearer friend, as the year has gone by, especially the last month or so, we both seem to have come upon more serious, more exciting, things to say to each other, in commensurately less flip style.”

Dear Wes

Being the agnostic that I am, I leave open and ponder the spirit/Spirit that welds the friendship.

Ken

---

Beyond the Creation Story – Why the Controversy Matters
Re Paul’s Quotes

“There is a third use of the term which is intermediate with the other two. It is looking at the universe without asserting that the Bible is either true or false, and trying to determine whether the Bible is more likely than not to be accurate. Here I believe is where the conflict lies.”

“I think that one point may be fairly made. If we use reason (3) and come to the conclusion that God “is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him”, and further come to the conclusion that the Bible is one means that He has to communicate with us, then we are entitled to use reason (2). In fact, it would be foolish not to.

“So the ultimate result of our using reason (3) may not be simply the idealization of reason (3) as the best, but rather reason (3) may (IMO should) lead to reason (2). It’s just that I can’t expect you to start with reason (2) unless you have already conceded, by whatever means, that God and the Bible are trustworthy.”

Hello Paul

I’m enjoying your comments and your logic.

Reason 3 can lead to Reason 2 and that possibility should not be ruled out. However, if I may, Reason 3 can also lead down a number of other pathways , based on the questions posed.

For example, let’s start with the premise of first cause of the universe. Can we, no matter what the source, for sake of argument, agree to call that creation? Perhaps the first question to be asked is, not whether there is a God, but whether we have anthropomorphized creation, to make God a comprehensible concept?

In order to answer this shouldn’t we examine all sacred texts to understand man’s historic attempts to define God(s)? It may be that all these texts are approximations of an evolving concept.

I’ll end with an old standby: What did the dyslexic philosopher ask? Is there a Dog?

Rough ruff.

Your, hopefully not dogmatic, agnostic friend
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

---