Again, if we continue to frame the debate as science …

Comment on One reason why the debate about origins is relevant by Roger Seheult.

Again, if we continue to frame the debate as science versus reglion we do not do the debate justice. This is a competition between two world views. One in which everything must have a material explaination and never invoke a creator; the other involving intelligent design, namely Jesus Christ adding that it was done as described in Genesis.

The word “science” is tossed around this site and elsewhere to mean the absolute evidence that is as hard as rock and as certain as facts in a never changing text book. Nevermind the fact that the theory of evolution itself has changed dramatically over the last few decades. That beast doesn’t exist – and it never will. For those that are truely familar with science in its real form understand that scientific facts actualy change with our understanding. F = ma but not really because this breaks down when you approach the speed of light. 10 years ago, medical science thought it was wise to give women estrogen replacement therapy (based on evidence that was more rigorous than evolutionists can perform today to show “evolution” (case-control restorspective data). Today prospective trials are the only thing that has dis-proved the estrogen replacement thinking – it is no longer done – no longer practiced. Why, because new evidence has come about. Science is not only about the weight of the evidence but it is also about the type of evidence. If the FDA approved drugs with the same type of evidence that evolutionists tell us that they are absolutely correct, we would be selling snake oil at the local office (based on expert opinion). Only randomized controlled trials with a priori criteria that are met with p values < 0.5 will ever be approved by the FDA for certain indications. Why? becuase lesser types of evidence are frought with bias. Yet, it is this bias frought evidence in evolution that is heralded as science. And it is this science that we are supposed to lay down our long held religious beliefs at the core of SDAism.

Regarding science: When an evolutionist can come to grips with the fact that red blood cells found in a "68 million year old T-rex fossil" means that it is not 68 million years old; is when I'll consider evolutionary "science" as bias free. Until then "evolutionary science" is a delusionary religion where the end conclusion justifies the procedureal means.

Roger Seheult Also Commented

One reason why the debate about origins is relevant
It might go something more like this:

Jesus saves me because I have a trusting, committed relationship with him. I simply do not believe, on the Day of Judgment, I will find myself standing before Jesus to hear him say, “I know you loved me with all your heart and to the best of your ability; I know you took every opportunity to draw closer to me; I know you cared for the unlovable. I am so surprised that despite knowing me that you would still beleive that I didn’t mean what I said through my prophet Moses nor what I persaonally said when I was there on earth. Why would you think that I would create the world using suffering and death – the very things that I came to destroy once and for all.” How well do you really know me?

Recent Comments by Roger Seheult

Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’?
There are too many of them. Where do I start.
Mary Schweitzer’s T-rex.

That’s just off the top….
wait another one –
Walter Veith….
wait more….

Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’?
Ad hominum attack means that no other better arguments were available at the time of writing. I win.

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
@Ervin Taylor:

I literally have not logged on to this website in years. It looks like the same arguments are going back and forth which means that if you haven’t been able to solve them by now, you aren’t going to convence each other of your points. What is really amazing to me and anyone intersted in the topic, however, is the tone of the comments, which usually reveal the maturity of the writer especially if they include absolutes:

“vast majority of scientifically-informed Adventists will thank Dr.Kent ”

“this misnamed web site”

“Dr. Kent has done a masterful job”

These are usually tip-offs to a lot. Also, it makes me wonder that if Sean Pitman is so ill-informed, and he operates on such a mis-leading web site, why does the good Dr. Taylor waste his time coming to this website, reading the material and then commenting on it? In fact I can bet that Dr. Taylor has spent more time on this web site then I have in the last year – and that speaks volumes about what Dr. Taylor really thinks of this website – perhaps the good Dr. Kent as well.

The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account
Again, the question is begged: Why would they work so hard to change the university rather than just leave and go where universities already believe the way you do? Dare I say that there lies a larger conspiracy that transcends LSU and that may be going on at your local SDA instituation? Again, why the push over a generation to change a whole university and to denude it of its fundamentals?

Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
Most of the blogs that are critical of this site aren’t interested in what this site is really out to do. They simply want to demonize it ergo Alinsky’s rule of indetify, demonize, and marginalize. Hence their cherry picking from the comments for their own purposes.

Thanks for the recap though.