Comment on Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians by David Read.
Kent, your point that we must believe by faith in the inspiration and accuracy of Scripture is true. But you go on to argue that, therefore, scientific evidence and argument should never be adduced to support faith. That’s a non sequiter; it doesn’t follow at all. Of course we should support faith with argument, including with argument from the data of science; Christian apologists have always done this down through the ages, and never more effectively than at present.
The notion that Christian apologetics is an illegitimate enterprise that detracts from faith is ahistorical, anti-scriptural, and the opposite of the truth. The purpose and function of apologetics is to support faith, and Christian apologists have always understood that to be its function. Currently, the most important task of SDA apologetics is to (1) show that the evidence for the Darwinian origins meta-narrative is by no means conclusive or even very convincing, and (2) to construct a robust biblical creationist model of earth history. But you constantly argue against not only the specific arguments made but also against the legitimacy of the whole enterprise.
Your position is so thoroughly backward, against the stream of Christian and Adventist history, and frankly outlandish, that I think I’m entitled to wonder what is really going on. I’ve concluded that your position is actually an transitional position on the way toward abandoning the current Adventist reading of Scripture. What you continually advocate is that in the current war over origins, our side should disarm while the other side continues to fight. Once our side has hopelessly lost the war–and no sane person believes there are any good arguments for a recent creation and worldwide flood–then we will be forced to change our reading of Scripture to incorporate the manifest “facts” of science.
I don’t think this strategy will work, however, because it is a little too obvious.
David Read Also Commented
Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians
I’m not sure this level of philosophical navel-gazing furthers Educate Truth’s mission. The fact is that teaching the Darwinian origins meta-narrative as truth, or as the best explanation of how the world came to be, works to undermine and destroy the Adventist faith.
Adventism must adhere to a biblical creationist origins narrative, the truth of which is necessary to the regard in which we hold the Sabbath commandment, which in turn is the lynchpin of our prophetic interpretation. To say that Darwinism is truth is to say that Seventh-day Adventism is nonsense. It’s as simple as that. To teach Darwinism as truth at SDA colleges is nothing more nor less than to turn those colleges into centers for the destruction of the Adventist faith.
As I read and blog about this topic here and at liberal websites, it strikes me that there are many quixotic and sometimes bizarre attempts to re-invent long-invented and established wheels in an attempt to obviate this conflict. But it can’t be done, it’s never been done, and you, dear reader, won’t be able to do it either. You have to make a choice between Seventh-day Adventism and mainstream, atheistic origins science.
Recent Comments by David Read
The Reptile King
Poor Larry Geraty! He can’t understand why anyone would think him sympathetic to theistic evolution. Well, for starters, he wrote this for Spectrum last year:
“Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.”
“Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference.”
So the traditional Adventist interpretation of Genesis is an “extra-Biblical interpretation” put forward by “the fundamentalist wing” of the SDA Church? What are people supposed to think about Larry Geraty’s views?
It is no mystery how LaSierra got in the condition it is in.
The Reptile King
Professor Kent says:
“I don’t do ‘orgins science.’ Not a single publication on the topic. I study contemporary biology. Plenty of publications.”
So, if you did science that related to origins, you would do it pursuant to the biblical paradigm, that is pursuant to the assumption that Genesis 1-11 is true history, correct?
The Reptile King
Well, Jeff, would it work better for you if we just closed the biology and religion departments? I’m open to that as a possible solution.
The Reptile King
Larry Geraty really did a job on LaSierra. Personally I think it is way gone, compromised beyond hope. The SDA Church should just cut its ties to LaSierra, and cut its losses.
As to the discussion on this thread, round up the usual suspects and their usual arguments.
La Sierra University Resignation Saga: Stranger-than-Fiction
It is a remarkably fair and unbiased article, and a pretty fair summary of what was said in the recorded conversation.
