Mr Brantley, Indeed it would be nice if we actually could trust what the quarterly said, expecting that it is written from a biblical standpoint. It has been the rare lesson that has not openly taught anti or extra biblical doctrine.

It is unfortunate that so many consider the Bible to be anti science, when the Bible clearly teaches us to be wise to the sciences as to understand the sovereignty of or God.
Our disposition towards God, much of the time, dictates our view of science. If we have a legalistic, unbending, view, this dictates our world view. If a graceful view, that is how we will view our world and the sciences.

From the Teacher's Comments in the SS lesson:

"Zoroastrianism, the religion of ancient Persia, is based on a belief in two gods, one good and one evil. The good god created those animals and plants that adherents regarded as noble and beautiful. The evil god created the “creeping things” and animals and plants that were seen as unpleasant or noxious."

Is this not what many Creationists believe: That God allowed Satan to make the "unpleasant and noxious" animals and plants? Did God create poison ivy; poisonous snakes; carnivores? If they were not originally created this way, when, or who suddenly changed them? Was it simply God's curse" Or, as many believe: Satan "amalgamated" God's original creation and was given free reign to change grass-eaters into carnivores? Who can explain this?

It's been a while since I followed the SS Quarterly, because long time ago I realized that it had become just an indoctrination tool to keep a group of people believing in the same "truth" based on the same "facts" - as defined by the church. And I am against any "intellectual incarceration" , aka brainwashing. This is a "soviet method" that should not be used by the church, any church. But, unfortunately... it often is!

An anti-science attitude is nothing new to the SDA community. It's much easier to manipulate people who reject science and embrace "faith alone" than those who deal with tangible facts and evidence. I am not saying that science has it all, but whatever has been uncovered by science is certainly more factual than what is known only "by faith."

Phil: thanks for calling attention to this. I don't attend a class that uses the SS Quarterly so have not seen this lesson.

However, whoever wrote it needs to be taken out to the woodshed and spanked with an up-to-date copy of a Philosophy of Science textbook. To say that methodological naturalism "is the view that everything that has happened, is happening, or will happen, has a natural cause" is just flat-out wrong. And to have gotten something that fundamental - so seriously wrong - should really embarrass Cliff & Co.

Science is agnostic toward miracle. The question of God is outside the scope of the scientific endeavor. And if a reader thinks otherwise, then I suggest they do a little thought experiment - try to put together a grant proposal to test for a miracle.

Likewise the statement "Methodological naturalists also assume that if this is the way it is now, this is how it has always been" is demonstrably false. A prime example is the current scientific theory that the K/T extinction was caused by a meteor. Geology does say that 'the present is the key to the past'. But what that means is if you see a formation in the geologic column that exhibits the same sort of stratigraphy as something we see in today's world, then you ought to conclude that the same sort of process caused it. That is, unless an alternate theory can better account for the evidence.

And this principle is very reasonable. If it walks like a duck, ... it is a duck. Or rather, it will be so interpreted unless and until a better explanation can be provided.

Although I often find fault with the comments by the authors of the SS Lesson Quarterly; this week I believe he is spot on. He is not disparaging the scientific method. He isn't even talking about the kind of science that investigates the "effect of water and sunshine on plants." He is speaking in the context of origins. The science of origins is much different than the kind of science that built the internal combustion engine, put a man on the moon, or discovered the process of photosynthesis.

I don't know any creationists who reason "that we must buttress our opposition to theistic evolution by attacking and disparaging science, the scientific method, and scientists." Many of the early scientists who made some of the great discoveries (such as Sir Isaac Newton) were creationists. It's not scientists or the scientific method that we are opposed to, it's their erroneous conclusions, which are nearly inevitable because of the world view embraced by so many of them. And then there are the attacks that are hurled at any scientist who dares to question the status quo regarding evolution (see Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled; No Intelligence Allowed"). Any scientist who values his career will think twice before he seriously questions the party line on evolution. The thought police are alive and well in the scientific community.

And if, by "characterizations about . . . biological change," he means "molecules to man" evolution, then I find no fault with the author's remarks "disparaging" that bankrupt theory.

I don't know if Mr. Brantley was deliberately obfuscating, but if he had read the entire lesson in context, I don't think he would have drawn such conclusions--unless he, like so many here at Spectrum, has bought into the cleverly crafted fairy tale we call evolution.

As for Rich Hannon's point about geology: Uniformitarianism may not be used in every branch of science, but it is used when convenient to the theory. Exceptions will be found when it is convenient. If geology doesn't follow the premise that "the present is the key to the past," then how did they come up with "millions of years" of sediment? With few exceptions (such as an obvious local flood), they assume that sediment was laid down in the same way it is today--slowly. They discount the idea of a world wide flood, even though the evidence for rapid sedimentation is everywhere.

The author's statements are "galling" only to those who have been duped by the evolutionary establishment.

Horatio, your reasoning is so utterly flawed it barely merits comment. I should point out, only for fun, that Newton was also an alchemist.

Which brings me to another important question: how can professional prophets be trusted? The first sign EGW was a fraud is that she made a career out of being a prophet.

Horatio-
Right on with your very incisive analysis; to let you know there are some out here who appreciate a well reasoned analysis of the matter.
I'm pleased and I know some others are that the SS lesson writer, so far, has been most emphatic relative to a literal six day Creation.

"All Christians have a choice to make."

True, a choice between ancient legend and contemporary (however limited) knowledge.

This current Sabbath School lesson reminds me of what I saw on sdacaricatures.blogspot.com :

Eve: Oh Adam, isn't creation AMAZING!
All these magnificent creatures in this beautiful place....

Adam: Ya, it's alright I guess.
Just don't forget what it's really all about...
Six literal, 24-hour, consecutive, contiguous days!

What appears more probable is the 60 minutes programme tracing the ancestry of Liz Hayes to Ireland and then eventually back to the heart of Africa:

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/stories/lizhayes/563291/our-journey

Elaine: the church founded the Geoscience Research Institute - whatever you may think of it, it is staffed by people with PhDs mostly from universities that are not SDA, and its whole purpose is to be exactly what you say SDAs ignore. Sorry, you're objectively wrong on this count.

Personally, I don't think the author(s) of the study could have used some better wording, but no author can fully anticipate how their words will be dissected thoroughly by critics. Some of the comments here are a bit harsh; I don't believe the author(s) were dishonest or particularly lacking in scholarship. He/she/they are guilty only of trying their best to support their personal views (which, of course, are also the Church's official line).

I agree with Phil's primary concern about the contrast painted between secular and "faithful" SDA scientists. The methodology is, or at least should be, the same. In my experience, I certainly haven't seen a difference in methodology. The only difference, really, is in interpretation, and this is merely a matter of faith: between relying solely on science to inform beliefs, versus relying on scripture and God's word ahead of what we currently understand from science.

Horatio, in his comment above, remarked how any scientist who dares question the status quo regarding evolution will be attacked. In my experience, having interacted and often collaborated with many dozens of secular biologists, I don't find this to be true at all. I've engaged in discussions with many of these individuals, and their respect toward my views (I'm a creationist) is matched by my respect toward theirs. In fact, many whom we think of as secular scientists (who are also successful and highly respected scientists) have been raised Christian; are married to a Christian and support their spouse's faith; are currently Christians themselves; and/or even go to Church. While many of these individuals may reject young life creationism (YLC), they are often highly tolerant of it, and for a wide range of reasons. I should add, too, that biologists tend to be much more tolerant of YLC than the geologists; after all, the former often engage aspects of biology that are completely independent of origins and long ages (which the geologists can't so readily escape). It's not an issue for them.

The one thing most good scientists have trouble with is dogmaticism (note my qualifier: "good;" there are many scientists who themselves are overly dogmatic). This spirit expressed by many Christians, often coupled with condemnation, makes it difficult for believing scientists to witness to their doubtful and unbelieving colleagues. It also makes it difficult, as Phil remarked, for SDA scientists to discuss their views when so many lay people proclaim to have expertise in things scientific, yet have a poor understanding of earth history, biological change, and the enterprise we know as science.

@faceman: "what is this church coming to?"

Hopefully a focus on experiential and personal relationship with God rather than an institutionally prescribed one.

Rich Hannon wrote: "Science is agnostic toward miracle. The question of God is outside the scope of the scientific endeavor."

No Rich, science (as currently practised by most in the scientific community) is a priori against miracles and would be unwilling to admit to one even if one happened in front of their very own eyes. They would invent new "laws" and new mathematics to explain the phenomenon rather than admit to a supernatural intervention. (Just like Einstein and his face-saving theories of relativity, intended to explain why it cannot be proven that the earth moves around the sun after numerous experiments to measure such motion have failed to do so. I'm not trying to initiate a debate on geocentrism vs heliocentrism but simply summarising the motives for Einstein's theories.)

"And if a reader thinks otherwise, then I suggest they do a little thought experiment - try to put together a grant proposal to test for a miracle."

What an argument? God does not do miracles on command, (despite the existence of various healing ministries among evangelical Christians. From my experience with a patient in my hospital "healed" by one of these ministries I postulate that most of these healings are nothing but fraud and the people "healed" simply do things in a fit of emotional excitement).

And do you think anyone would fund the grant, given most funding agencies are dead-set against creationism and the intelligent design?

How about examining the evidence already existing. There are people out there (I'm thinking of one in particular) who have been born with anatomical defects and were on the point of death a few days after birth due to a non-functioning undeveloped GI tract. And after some serious prayer a miracle occurs and they are healed, and scans (for lack of a better word) show everything "normal".

How about other miraculous events, such as receiving food or money or whatever after prayer exactly at the last moment when needed, despite not speaking to any human being? There are numerous examples of this.

Science has locked itself into a specific way of operating which leaves it unable to examine many phenomena. Let's just look natural therapies as an example. Let's look at a true example (I'm sure any here will not believe it but I assure you it is a true story). A person with severe ulcerative colitis with dysplasia with no improvement after trying many things is given the option of colectomy. He doesn't like the sound of losing his bowel, so decides to visit a (conservative Adventist) natural health clinic/retreat which treats him with a mainly raw diet, charcoal poultices and many other things. 6 months later on repeat colonoscopy, his bowel is found to be essentially normal except for one benign polyp which is subsequently removed. How would they even investigate this? It's impossible. In science and medicine they would investigate one treatment modality and if it doesn't work, move to the next. Here's a bunch of quacks which use multiple modalities simultaneously which result in healing. Which one caused it? One or all? And what did the person's doctor say? "Keep doing whatever you're doing," but no burning desire to investigate such a complete healing by quacks of one of his patients that none of his and other doctor's treatments could produce. Such an occurrence would never be able to be written up in a medical journal because it is essentially "uscientific", even though it is real. This is why natural therapies will never end up mainstream and will never be properly investigated.

The modern scientific mind is essentially a closed one.

"No Rich, science (as currently practised by most in the scientific community) is a priori against miracles and would be unwilling to admit to one even if one happened in front of their very own eyes."

And yet, Newton was a creationist and a believer in Bible prophecy, right?

In itself, the statement quoted from the lesson seems to be rather innocuous and essentially true. Perhaps more could have been said, but won't condemn it at face value simply by attributing to it implications that are not obvious or argued. The good thing is that it leaves room for a great deal of discussion, which is as the lesson should provide.

Probably all modern scientists do base their epistemology on naturalistic causation; and most do not introduce divine causation into their disciplines. At the same time, some leading ones go so far as to vehemently oppose the idea of God, let alone God as creator, and are therefore atheists. And they base such vehement opposition primarily, not on what they discovered, but on what they have failed to discover in their study of nature itself. Many Darwinian evolutionists tend to fall into this category.

There are other scientists who are theistic. Some of these, while adhering to the principle of naturalistic causation, maintain faith in a supreme being who transcends nature, did not cause nature, and does not intervene in nature. Some are willing to accept the view that God initiated nature in some fashion but has long since left it to evolve by itself and on its own terms.

Still others believe in an idea commonly couched as intelligent design, for want of a less polarizing term. In varying degrees, they have faith in a God who intentionally designed and created all life on this planet at least, and who empowers nature through laws and processes that are essential for its maintenance and development. So that they recognize a divine hand as an active force in nature, even while employing empirical naturalistic methods of understanding and discovery.

For me, it is an article of faith to believe in such a God, a creator who also sustains his creation in ways that we do not fully understand and probably never will, but who in doing so contends with forces of natural degradation and with human inadequacies that pervert it - all too often through ignorance, indifference, the contravention of its laws, and by plundering it through deliberate violence such as destructive wars.

I am uncomfortable with the drive to let the scientific enterprise determine what to believe so far as origins is concerned; that is not their role. At the same time, I have peace and comfort in my own faith that allows scientists and others to believe or not believe whatever they have reason to believe or not believe - so long as they don't constantly SCOFF at the intelligence or rationality of those whose world view and faith differs from their own, and AND without imposing it on our children.

Here's what my basic approach would be, if I were teaching biology in an SDA university. I would be honest and fair with my students, with my discipline, and with my employers by saying this to my students: "Here's what I have learned and what the researchers and thought leaders in this discipline adhere to and expect you to understand. Critique it, but be very conversant with it. Here are some of its limitations, the issues it does not address and the questions it does not answer. Be aware of these also. There is an alternative viewpoint to which our sponsoring institution adhere adhere; let me briefly explain it. Critique it, but be very conversant with it as well, if not in this class in PHIL 101, which you are required to take. If you wish to know how I personally relate to these matters and why I enjoy teaching here, make an appointment any time and come see me in my office".

Granted, I am not a teacher of pure science, but, during many years of teaching health science on the university level, I have done this to some extent in dealing with issues of the environment. No student has ever been anything but appreciative of this approach.

Bogdan Gheorgita wrote: "And yet, Newton was a creationist and a believer in Bible prophecy, right?"

Yes, and there is huge gap between Newton and science "as currently practised by most scientists". How long ago did Newton live? Newton tried to explain what he observed in the universe. But Newton also believed God and the Bible and expounded on the prophecies of Daniel. In short - Newton knew a lot about everything. Today's scientists are mostly specialists in very narrow fields and know a great deal about very little and therefore cannot see the big picture.

This weks SS Bible Study Guide - Teachers Edition is embarrassing ,annoying, misleading, deceptive.
The "Teachers" maybe or most probably learn new terms without having a discussion or even thorough explanation of "methodological naturalism" -"methodological atheism" with all the insinuation
implied here.. (By the way, LLU also uses and needs this epistemoloogical preassumption as a tool and it is the basic assumption for "Science" since Enlightment) .

Homo heidelbergensis and Homo neanderthalensis and - and - and represent serious problems for Soterology : This would require serious indepth discussions about the character of these "beings"- in wahtever time we place them.

But so : Some "teachers"< have learned a few words without a glance of their ambiguous meaning, pass them on, now we know more and have some more plain statements to interrupt any further serious discussions or deliberations.

Roma locuta, causa finita.. Very sad.

So, Horatio, if evolution is taught in our schools, what exactly happened at LSU?

Don Tucie
The voice of one crying

Horatio
Yes indeed galling as in irritating and exasperating.
The reasons are many
1] The continuing authoratiative comments here about the nature of science and the gullibility of scientists from people who have never published a scientific paper attended a scientific meeting or spent any time in pursuit of a higher research degree or examining the original literature with any sort of vigour
2] The faciliity with which apparently intelligent people will accept propoganda simply because he massages their prejudices. from an actor, republican speech writer and economic commentator whose credentials are clearly evident by the way he so grossly misjudged the subprime margage crisis,
3] That people feel so insecure that they must see scientific conspiracy particularly in the actions of a scientific journal (Proceedings of the biological society of Washington) and the Smithsonian for acting against an editor who was emplyed by NIH and was working at the Smithsonian for the way he dishonestly ;performed his editorial responsibilities. www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg
4] That the writer of the lesson would find ridiculous the idea of death as a selective mechanism without at the same time recognizing that death is portrayed as an essential part of salvation in most Christian faiths.
Romans 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
Hebrews 9:21-23 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

How can the writer honestly say one is ridiculous without tacitly admitting that using death as a salvation mechanism is also ridiculous.
5] That Adventists should so confuse the doctrine of creation with a theory of creation that we are condemned to repeat the errors of the past. The Church Catholic and Protestant alike picked a heliocentric theory albeit wrongly at the time of Galileo and now again we are repeating the mantra that Christianity is only compatible with one theory. We seem to lack to wit to see that a doctrine of creation is distinct from a theory of creation. The theory of creation was clearly the dominat view in the early 19th century but was judged and found wanting by the alternative theory of speciation through natural selection. The theory of creation by continuous creation died out with Agassiz by 1873.
6] The failure to see that you cannot with any sort of rigour and honesty on one hand accept naturalistic explanation for disease causation and at the same time deny that there is a rational naturalistic explanation for speciation.

What is encouraging is that the GRI are at least admitting that there is abundant evidence for long ages but that we believe in a theory of creation by faith in spite of this evidence. That is the approach that has integrity.

"But Newton also believed God and the Bible and expounded on the prophecies of Daniel. In short - Newton knew a lot about everything. Today's scientists are mostly specialists in very narrow fields and know a great deal about very little and therefore cannot see the big picture."

How many of Newton's prophetic interpretations do you agree with? Newton knew little about many things. He was never a biologist, for instance. We romanticize his intelectual stature. There still are phycisists who excell at math and use a lot of astronomical knowledge. We call them theoretical physicists. Some of them know more, in many fields of knowledge, than Newton, a devious inventor of mathematics btw, ever hoped to know. The average high school student in many countries (not the US, I know) knows more than Newton ever did.

The problem with most denominational schools is not that they don't teach creationism in science classes. It's that they don't teach evolution to seminary students.

"I am uncomfortable with the drive to let the scientific enterprise determine what to believe so far as origins is concerned; that is not their role."

And you think we should let myth "determine what to believe" about origins? Faith has nothing to teach us. It only saves us a lot of energy in adhering to a social group or another. It makes belonging easy.

I would draw your attention to the article by KIM PAPAIOANNOU. perhaps it would be helpful in this discussion.

I think that God set up things in such a way that we must be humbled. There are many things we do not know and we cannot get away with bulldozing other people with our beliefs.

It is possible that God deliberately set things up in such a way that anyone wanting to create a worldview out of their own limited perspective is stumped. on the other hand it may be so simply because this is the nature of reality itself.

I believe in a six-day creation; although I don't hang everything else on it. I just think it's the most logical model that fits my knowledge of who God is. I do like surprises though.

Other than that, this debate bores me. I think it's a distraction. Theistic evolution will never catch on in this church in my opinion. people should stop pushing (forward or back).

Bill Newell (Fri, 01/13/2012 - 22:31) and Hedrick (Sat, 01/14/2012 - 02:09): I appreciated your posts and identify with your perspectives.

Unfortunately, Hedrick's hypothetical approach to teaching, which is exceptional (and many of us operate that way), would get one fired at an SDA university if Educate Truth had its way. Sean Pitman and Educate Truth operate by the mantra that if an SDA employee fails to tell students that the overwhelming weight of evidence favors the SDA position, then they are unfit for employment and are stealing from the Church. Very disturbing...to say the least. Fortunately, as I have become acquainted with increasing numbers of SDA scientists, most operate under Hedrick's approach--but they know darned well that Educate Truth is determined to expose them.

Pauluc (Sat, 01/14/2012 - 06:33): As usual, you have good points to make. We may disagree on our views toward origins, but I (and other voices, like Elaine) likewise am frustrated by those who pontificate about science without a good understanding of it. Sadly, the situation will never change. And I, too, appreciate the candidness and faith-based approach of the GRI scientists--yet Educate Truth and David Read have explicity called for their dismissal!

Faith is the only way of knowing God.
Any claims I make apply to me and my own experience.
Others may or may not share this.

What? Or who?

I am not trying to make universal claims.

This is as much as I understand things. My knowledge of God comes in large part from my journey with him over all these years. Life was not easy at all. Many times I came near to suicide.

I may not know who I am or anything else about myself, but I know that God was with me--and that's the only thing that keeps me going.

Listen, God may turn out to be very different than I imagined, but I am sure of one thing (based on my experiences)--and that is that He loves me.

This is as much as I can say without sharing my personal story. I do not want you to think that I am "sloganeering" or anything that's all.

Had the Bible been written today--especially the creation account--how would you incorporate proven scientific theories such as Relativity, Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, as well as the new unproven theories of String Theory and its purported six extra dimensions?

Quite a challenge! But if our best inspired authors would place their particular litetary abilities--with divine inspiration, of course--they might create a more legible and articulate work that even lay prople could read.

Well, not to be too absurd, but I can't know everything. I am sure (if you are married or partnered) that you do not know everything about your significant other. God is very big. I can only speak about where I interface with Him.

Uppermost in my mind He is my Friend. I call Him Father when I pray and I believe He made me and cares for me. So I guess I would say God is my Creator and the one who takes care of me. Am I being too vague?

Think about a tangent to a circle. Outside of that interface, what would either "know" about the other? That is a rough analogy to make my point. I can only know what God has revealed to me in our experiences together as I grew up. I am not even sure I understand what I know.

I think where I would disagree with your analogy is that your being a "man" helps you understand what a "man" is. There would be no such aid for understanding God--in my opinion.

Haerich-
"I cannot in good faith share this periodical with my friends and neighbors." Why not?

This would be true if the science teachers were specifically told that they were hired to teach Creationism. Can anyone show that it was so stated in their contracts? Having taught for some decades, how can LSU now state that they did not teach according to their contracts?

If one is hired to teach math or physics, or PE, should he also be expected to teach religion--the specific Adventist belief?

Can anyone show that the LSU science teachers were designated on their contracts as "ministers" which has now been given significance by the SCOTUS? This ruling was NOT made until after the LSU 3 were fired, and thus cannot be applied.

@Don Tucie... I would not dare on this forum to say to you what has come immediately to my mind to say! The anger you last post brought up in me ... Let me just say that God uses the simple to confound the wise, the wise in their own self-righteousness.

The Holy Spirit calls whom He wills, those who would hear His voice. If they do not meet your criteria for giftedness, all the better!

You call attention to their lack of education, as did the Pharisees to Jesus, and His Disciples. But everyone else knew where their education came from,"they had been with Jesus".

Horatio,
After 50 years GRI can not produce a YEC model to explain the evidence. Since you think a YEC model better explains things, perhaps you can put them right.
Maybe you could go to the Happy Birthday Universe thread and explain why tree rings and lake varves seem to confirm C14 dating to about 40,000 years.

Don T, I teach biology at an Adventist school and that is exactly what I do. The curriculum requires that evolution be taught but if you start the class with 'this is nonsense but you have to know it' then you are setting the students up for failure, both academically and spiritually. Students need an safe environment to dialogue and discuss the issues and to examine the evidence so they can come to their own conclusions (and if they can decide for themselves they will be more likely to hold onto that understanding) My aim in teaching is that students will come to realise that God is their personal savior. believing in YEC will not get you to heaven, but a relationship with God is necessary. For this reason I discuss with students theistic evolution and how the bible truths can still be seen as relevant even if not taken literally, of course it is important to also discuss the limitations of this view. I know that many of my students will be exposed to evolutionary ideas when they get to university ( very few of my students go on to study at an Adventist tertiary institution ) and I'm afraid that the evidence is pretty convincing, If all they had ever heard was that evolution is wrong then they are likely to throw out their belief as well when confronted with mainstream science. As I said earlier I would much prefer a student to go through life with a relationship with God even if that encompasses theistic evolution, or is even outside the Adventist church, than to see their faith destroyed by the dogmatic and narrow views of some church members/leaders.

Above all, when dealing with impressionable students it is important to be honest with the difficulties, understanding of their beliefs and above all compassionate in the journey that they are on. I well remember my personal struggles in dealing with the evolution/creation debate and was privileged to have a good scientist and honest Christian to guide me.

I don't believe that people "lose their faith" simply because of exposure to naturalistic evolution in college. Loss of faith is something entirely more complex than that.

This view seems to be very common among some church leaders though. It worries me, because it betrays a lack of knowledge about the faith challenges that people face.

Also in Trinidad and Tobago

"I don't believe that people "lose their faith" simply because of exposure to naturalistic evolution in college. Loss of faith is something entirely more complex than that."

I agree. For me it was the combination of a faith construct like a house of cards and overly simplistic black and white either/or thinking and then facing the evidence for naturalistic evolution. When we as a church blame naturalistic evolution for destroying people's faith we fail to acknowledge our own complicity in perpetuating polarized thinking.

Depends on what you mean by "loose their faith".

I lost my faith in the SDA organisation's ability to decide what is true when I discovered they were lying to me about evolution, but I put it down to deliberate ignorance and selective editing.

I lost my faith in the SDA leadership's ability to be honest when I discovered they were lying to me about EGW, and knew that they were.

I lost my faith in the SDA leadership's ability to make improvements when I discovered they were consciously sabotaging efforts to improve things, knowing what needed to be done and then not doing it.

I lost my faith in the SDA denominations ability to make improvements when I discovered the laiety were deliberately selecting and supporting incompetent liars as leaders because the laiety, as a whole, do not care about truth.

But I have not lost my faith in a God and saviour.

/Bevin

In our church even conservatives akcnowledged that the lesson seem a bit over the top anti-science.

Also a woman in our class, who I trust, bought and skimmed Davidson's book and her opinion was that the anti-science attitude was not to be found Davidson's work. (surpise, surprise).

I did read Kim Papaioannou's article and found it as disturbing as the lesson.

"Remember Peter, he was just a simple fisherman, yet he made some profound statements under the inspiration of the Spirit just weeks after having 'no idea'."

Yes, especially about quantum physics. I liked that part best.

Elaine, I hope you're not talking to me :)

@David Awdish: "@Don Tucie... I would not dare on this forum to say to you what has come immediately to my mind to say! The anger you (sic) last post brought up in me ... "

David, at first I thought you were angry because so many people in Don's church were just talking nonsense. If they had no scientific education, I wonder how come they were judging science and its methods. This is just absurd.

Great part of the conflict in our church is always related to people passing judgment on issues they have not enough knowledge about. They refuse to have knowledge, they minimize the value of facts, they navigate just "by faith" most times ignoring the obvious. And worse, they are PROUD of their futile attitude!

This used to make me angry. Not anymore. Just got used to it after seeing so many cases throughout the years.

Sorry, David Read, but I'd bet a substantial portion of SDAs concede that the science doesn't look good for our Church's position, yet accept the Church's position just as Phil does. They do so because they believe God is better informed than man and are willing to take God's word on things--particularly what he wrote with his finger in stone ("For in six days..."). They further acknowledge that nature does not fully reflect God's character or His divine plan, and allow for it to be distorted by the enemy--just as God's tolerance of suffering and death do not reflect God's ideal for his creatures.

As much as you would like to think otherwise, brother Phil is hardly in a fringe group within the Church. Where do you get your notions?

I find it ironic that you should suggest that Phils approach is eccentric.

Tell us again about your scientific forays that lead to your belief in the genetic engineering capabilities of the highly advanced antedeluvian civilizations that generated the amagamaged species and transitional forms left in the fossil record but left no other trace of their civilizations!

You pontificate on science as though it is a legal process where truth is simply what you can pursuade someone to accept not as a seach to understand some objective reality using the accepted tools of hypothesis testing and experimentation.

You seem unable to accept the almost universal assumption that science is about natural process and cannot be anything else but based on methodolical naturalisms Against all of the conventions of science you want to go back 400 years to make explanations based on the supernatural integral to science.

You seem unable to make a distinction between atheism and methodical naturalism and seem to insist that they are equivalent. You insist there is only an "atheistic origins narrative" or creation science and seem incapable of seeing that a natural event based on natural law can just as easily reflect a higher power or deity that underlies that natural law.

You seem to think that any observations in nature [scientific facts] can be interpreted arbitrarily and according to your world view based on a particular and restrictive interpretation of the bible you believe you can arrive logically back at your 24hr 6day 6000 year old assumption about origin, but when I have given you, on the educate truth web site, specific and concrete examples from the primary literature you produce only the most superficial responses and hide behind the the slick responses of a body mechanic who is a self proclaimed expert in all fields of science and who arrives a overwhelming evidence for his position only by a lawyering process of selectively quoting the exception and the rare event as though they are the predominant findings.

Your contributions may get more respect when you can give a coherent rationale about why you do not accept magic as the basis for the function of your computer or as the basis for your health care but seem to for your theories of origins.

"Hiding info and facts from church members is an old practice in the SDA anyway."

Come on, George. This is in no way unique to Adventism. History is replete with truly horrendous levels of information suppression as a vital paradigm of virtually all religious fundamentalism. It is still alive and kicking.

Don Tucie
The voice of one crying

@Don Tucie, and George Tichy, As I awoke this morning I was thinking I over reacted, my sincerest apologies to all.
I know there are many S.S. teachers, who, without independent thought or critical study, propagate the "party line". If the quarterly says it, that's what they teach. And there are those teachers who do use critical thinking to promote independent study and thought, who use a more biblical,graceful approach in their classes.

My feeling on this is that both approaches are needed, that people have a choice which message they are going to listen to. And if a person is willing to answer the call, to do the work (as you know its not always an easy job), they are to be applauded.
I actually took this week off. I was wondering how I would approach this lesson as I studied it. But in my posts, on this thread and the other, I think my approach has been presented.
So much of the time we overlook the "spiritual" in our quest for understanding in the physical, rather than allowing the spiritual to inform the physical. They dont seem to be mutually exclusive.

"...This is in no way unique to Adventism. History is replete with truly horrendous levels of information suppression as a vital paradigm of virtually all religious fundamentalism. It is still alive and kicking." - Don Tucie

Don,
That's exactly it. However, it should be xpected that people who elevate themselves to the cathegory of "remnant people" should do better, isn't it? But they don't!

------------------------------

David Awdish - Sun, 01/15/2012 - 08:50
"@Don Tucie, and George Tichy, As I awoke this morning I was thinking I over reacted, my sincerest apologies to all."

David,
I am speaking for myself only, but you never have to apologize to me for expressing your point of view, whichever it can be. Every person has the right to think freely and express it freely. And take the position they thing is right, no matter what it is. And still deserves the respect from others anyway.
I know that this idea is difficult for some people to digest, but that's the way I think is fair to all

----------------------------------

" But to get such elementary stuff so tragically wrong when it would be absolutely trivial to get it right..." - Robert Jacobson

Robert,
I am 100% with you on this. But I wonder how many voices on Spectrum will we hear defending the "official position of the church" as reflected in the SSQ.
Nobody can challenge this: The SSQ is the official vehicle to communicate to the World Church what the "official beliefs" are.
It's the SSQ that has the church's IMPRIMATUR seal. This is the BS (Best Statements) we get defining what every adventist is expected to accept, believe in, and propagate to others as part of the everlasting gospel given to this special, unique church of God for the last days.

Wow..., this does make sense, doesn;' it???

Your contributions may get more respect when you can give a coherent rationale about why you do not accept magic as the basis for the function of your computer or as the basis for your health care but seem to for your theories of origins.

Actually, Pauluc, the computer is an excellent example of why I reject naturalistic models of origins. A computer is a complex machine that is obviously designed; anyone who suggested that a functioning computer, complete with software, could accidentally self-organize would be carted off to the insane asylum. The human body (including its obviously designed mental "software"), along with many other biological organisms and organs, is vastly more complex and better designed than a computer. I think anyone who suggests that it accidentally self-organized is just as insane as someone who suggests that a computer is a product of random accidents.

Moreover, if I rejected what the Bible says about origins, I wouldn't be a believer. And considering the weight that Adventism places on the literal six-day creation and Sabbath rest as a basis for Sabbath observance, if I rejected Bible history in favor of speculative naturalistic theories of origins, I certainly wouldn't be a Seventh-day Adventist. In fact, someone who rejects the biblical creation narrative and yet claims to be a Seventh-day Adventist is even more insane than one who thinks that computers, and humans, and dinosaurs, can accidentally self-organize and self-create.

Bogdan Gheorghita said, "No evolutionist says that the human body has 'accidentally self-organized'."

You can't be serious. That's exactly what they believe. They believe humans evolved (by random chance) from an ape-like ancestor; that ancestor evolved (by random chance) from a "lower" mammal, which evolved (by random chance) from even "lower" organisms, which evolved (by random chance) from a single cell, which developed (by random chance) from some more "primitive" form of life, which somehow developed (by random chance) from inorganic materials, which had previously organized themselves together (by random chance). And all this came from the "big bang," (i.e., an explosion) which, contrary to all known laws of physics, coalesced itself into stars, planets, etc. That's simplistic, but it's basically what evolutionists believe. And "random chance" is synonymous with "accidentally." Or, as one Dr. of biology has said (and I paraphrase), "evolution tells us that we evolved from a rock."

So, at the root of it all, evolutionists go believe that "the human body has 'accidentally self-organized'."

Given my good friend David Read's contributions to this discussion, I want to explain our present disagreement. I argue that there is a scientific interpretation and an ultimate interpretation pertaining to how we view nature and origins. The scientific interpretation rests on methodological naturalism in adherence to the protocols for how we do science. In contrast, the ultimate interpretation looks to supernatural evidence such as Scripture to determine whether and to what extent the scientific interpretation is accepted as true. There are different formulations proposed for how one relates Scripture to external science data. David is correct that I defer to Scripture in my ultimate interpretation of how I view nature and origins.

David collapses both interpretations into one by seeking to interpret science data based on what Scripture says and calling that endeavor "creation science." The problem with that approach is that the interpretation will purport to possess scientific validity but in reality have none. To allow religious beliefs to shape our scientific findings and interpretations is a textbook illustration of bias. Accordingly, the endeavor that is called "creation science" is a form of pseudoscience.

Paradoxically, if absence of scientific validity is freely acknowledged, then such an interpretation can fairly function and have merit within the realm of natural philosophy. There is no reason why natural philosophy cannot be accorded the same value and dignity as science. But proponents of "creation science" continue to insist that their work be accorded scientific merit and taught as science in the classroom.

The advantage to David's approach is that there is no cognitive dissonance between two different interpretations. There is no tension between Scripture and external science data, because the external science data is not allowed per the methodology of "creation science" to contradict Scripture.
The primary disadvantage to David's approach is that rather than allow science and natural philosophy to exist together as disciplines for studying the world, natural philosophy overwhelms and displaces science. David's argument, whether or not he would care to articulate it in this way, is essentially that there is no such thing as origins science.

This argument is not wholly absurd. How can one study the miracle of Creation by natural tools and mechanisms? There is a quote by Ellen White that I don't have at my fingertips where she expresses caution about the capability of the tools of science to discern the handiwork of God. But it is unfair to suggest that she would have embraced the losing arguments asserted in Kitzmiller by proponents of "creation science." So I think the study of origins science is legitimate as long as one ultimately defers to Scripture.

Take a deep breath Bogdan, it really can be that bad here ;)

Note - face palms are acceptable for the "evolutionists are just biased against creation science" argument, but you aren't allowed to bang your head on your desk until you hear the "a tornado can't go through a junkyard and assemble a jet liner" argument! I think we're getting close.

Beth,

Tx :) I'll delay gratification.

"I actually find this line of argument unconvincing, because even if it could be proved that Adam and all after him kept a sabbath, too many other assumptions have to be made about the nature of the New Covenant and the plan of salvation for this to work."

That would indeed make for an important discussion. Adventism has barely revised its arguments about the "perpetual sign" since Bates first proposed them.

@David Read - Your response to my post was certainly interesting; I'll leave it at that.

To others - I personally think the overriding purpose of the SS Quarterlies--and any Bible study for that matter--should be to promote a stronger relationship between the reader and Jesus Christ. Nothing can eclipse this singularly important relationship within the bounds of any denomination or set of doctrines. I would like to think that SDA leadership and the SS authors have made this their ultimate goal. I imagine they pray for this purpose as they set about their work in producing each quarterly. And I would not doubt their sincerity. But of course, they're human, so it's inevitable that other goals would get in the way.

The one thing I need to be sure of is that I'm looking at myself as critically as I might look at others. It's always easier to find problems in others.

"I imagine they pray for this purpose as they set about their work in producing each quarterly. " - Professor Kent

And that is a problem. If they prayed for this SSQ, and this is the best they could come up with, something is going wrong in their wireless communication with the Heavens. I don't follow those "lessons" but I certainly looked at the book, and found it amazing that someone had the audacity of writing some of those comments and propose some ideas about science that were so narrow.

Who do they think they are actually targeting with such a low level of biased intellectual approach?

"...maybe I should just hang out with the episcopals on sunday and call it good. ..." -

Carolyn,
At least with them you may not have to read the Bible through the lenses of a "prophet" or fight about issues like the SDAs are engaging in now.
When the SDAC prints a SSQ like this to be "studied" by the congregations worlwide, what kind of Christians can we expect to produce? Thinkers, or parrots?

Carolyn,
Don't allow those unbelievers to destroy your faith. The church knows what is the best for you. Just follow what the leaders teach and you will be safe. Beware of those heresies! Satan is planting them to deceive God's people, and he has many agents everywhere talking to people like you, to confuse them.

Don't question what the Remnant Church's leaders teach you. Just have faith!

"At least with them you may not have to read the Bible through the lenses of a "prophet"..."

Yes other faith traditions read the Bible objectively in a vacuum, that's why they all came to the same conclusions and nobody ever broke off from the Episcopalians.

Well if easy to deal with, you mean Calvinists burning trinitarians, Magisterial protestants literally persecuting anabaptists, puritans fleeing to America from Anglican persecution and then persecuting anyone who disagreed with them... yeah I guess not having a prophet really helped them come to agreement on doctrinal issues better than us.

Should read "Calvinists burning ANTI-trinitarians, and to be fair it was only one that I'm specifically aware of.

The main point to take away from this lesson, for all who understand a bit of science, is that the magnitude of error on this particular subject might well be about normal for the errors on any other week.

"the transcendent is available"

No contradiction there?

"the constraints of Bible history."

To hear David speak in the same breath about science is nauseous.

@David Read

"I have a theory, of which you are apparently aware, why many vertebrates found in the fossil record are not found in post-Flood deposits nor as living forms."

Do tell!

David Read:

Re dating methods. Why didn't God provide just one conclusive date that drops out of science which pin points creation week?

Bogdan Gheorghita

I wrote the following: "I am uncomfortable with the drive to let the scientific enterprise determine what to believe so far as origins is concerned; that is not their role."

You responded with the following: "And you think we should let myth "determine what to believe" about origins? Faith has nothing to teach us. It only saves us a lot of energy in adhering to a social group or another. It makes belonging easy".

Actually, your response is a non-response that looks very much like the manipulation of thought. How can you suggest to readers that I "think" myth should "determine what to believe"? You may think that the only alternative to science is mythology, but I would suspect that very few students of history, and of the history of ideas, would take that position.

If I may have the privilege of sharing with you what I actually do think, it is that every person should, and will, determine what to believe himself/herself, and on what to base such belief. That's why I merely stated that I was uncomfortable with the suggestion some have entertained that the scientific enterprise be given the role to determine what Christians should believe about a non-science matter such as origins.

By raising the issue of myth, are you suggesting that all belief that is not determined or measured by science has to be a myth? Are you declaring to readers that they are amiable fools, or worse, if they do not accept the scientific enterprise is the source of all truth - that to it, and it alone, all who do not want to believe myths must point their rockets to discover the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? In a universe so vast and only yet marginally explored, I hope that is not what you are implying.

I think it was Einstein who said that "not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts".

Has it ever occurred to you that it is possible, certainly theoretically, that an honest application of the scientific method itself could result in the discovery of ways of knowing that are not themselves scientific, or that can be explained by scientific measures?

Well, speaking for myself, I have solid reasons to believe that Biblical revelation is a light that shines in a place of gloom and darkness. I also have solid reasons to believe that faith, properly defined and understood, opens up entirely new areas of knowledge and wisdom that naturalism, by definition, could do nothing about but complement at beast, make educated guesses, or speculate at worse, (although some choose to pontificate instead).

In fact much of what is called science is based on faith. And, according to scripture, "It is by faith we UNDERSTAND that the universe was created by God's word, so that what can be seen was made out of what cannot be seen" (Hebrews 11:3).

Hi Hedrick

Would you be comfortable going to a Doc who had obtained his/her training via this method:

"that every person should, and will, determine what to believe himself/herself, and on what to base such belief. "

Or would you kind of like them to be from an accredited Medical School?

David

There seems a paucity of historical perspective when you say "mainstream science rejected creationistic origins theories not because of observations but because of a philosophical commitment to naturalism. The idea that I must reject the methods and techniques of science because I reject science's naturalism is tiresome nonsense. The methods of science were all pioneered by Christians and usually creationists; the fact that they were creationists did not stop them from creating and utilizing the methods of modern science."

May I suggest you read some history of science; The Discovery of Evolution by David Young and the recent books of Ron Numbers would be a good place to start. "Creationistic origins" encapsulated in your scientific theory of divine fiat creation of the earth and all living things, the stars, the moon and the sun in 6 24hr literal days 6000 years ago was rejected because it was displaced by a better scientific theory; origin of species by a process of natural selection over long periods of time. A theory developed on a backdrop of increasing recognition of a vast diversity of life and a geological and fossil history that could not be accounted for by the previous theories. To claim vindication of your creationsist views from historical figures is scarcely useful as the originators of the theories of natural selection were also creationists up until they found a better theory. I have every confidence that the early scientists you claim as vindicating your position would also readily accept a natural explanation for origins as they were from the begining seeking to explain the world in terms of natural law. To somehow imply that they rejected a view that did not even exist at their time is indeed illogical. This is the same logical fallacy that says Jesus rejected theories of natural selection. The methods they pioneered and their approach to understanding the physical universe were precisely the methods that then resulted in the rejection of creationism as a scientific theory. Do you think they would have rejected the science they themselves created?

The example of Walter Veith typifies those who become creationists from a scientific background. None that I have ever met or read come to literal creationsism from an understanding of the scientific evidence. Their defence of creationsism is post hoc; baggage they must bear in becoming a fundamentalist or as the cost of their religious experience. Read John Ashton's "In six days" and consider how many of the 50 scientists there did not project onto science their fundamentalism to arrive at a position of literal creationsism. Diest scientist excepted.

Tiresome it may be but a call for consistency is needed as woolly thinking perists. I have never asked you to reject the methods and techniques of science I am simply asking you to justify the point at which you abandon a naturalistic explanation and resort to the magical (as in "possessing or using or characteristic of or appropriate to supernatural powers"). Scientist who publish in the scientific literature (the only real scientists) never propose magic as a scientific explanation but do recognize the limitations of science and the extent of knowledge. Historically this has been the trajectory of science; the magical has been progressively eroded by explanation based on natural mechanism.

You rue the denigration of Gods power inherent in natural explanations
"...rather than allow God to create as He tells us He did in Scripture. By all means, do not drag the Creator down, and box Him into speculative human theories like Darwinism. Leave the Creator alone.."
And yet again you seem to gloss over history. Understandings change, and I would be surprised if yours have not. I doubt you accept literally God words in Gen 1 describing the creation of a hard dome that covered the earth and seperated the water above from the water below. A dome onto which the stars moon and sun were placed and across the face of which the birds flew. I think not, you reinterpret this with some idea of an ethereal firmament that fits better with your cosmology and ideas of a pre-existing universe. You want your scientific methods for the cargo it gives via the physical sciences but reject it when you feel biology impinges on your understanding of a theory of creation and questions the need for actions you can only attribute to an omnipotent God.

And yet we seem to very easily rationalize away the words of Jesus in Matthew 17 where he tells of his omnipotence and power to heal. We prefer the naturalistic scientific approach to medicine with its evidence of benefit. Whatever happened to literal plain reading of scripture here? Is that not dragging the creator down and denying his power. Whatever happened to the 1864 vision of the water treatment and prayer? Again superceded by naturalistic explanation and medical practice. Whether we recognize it or not we interpret capriciously and so readily deprecate the potent God in favour of once "speculative human theories" when our bodies are afflicted.

You are most welcome to your interpretation and religious practice but I am asking nothing more than a little sympathy for those who do understand and practice science. Those who try to be honest and consistent in our reading of the bible and understanding of God and the methods of science he has given to understand the physical world.

Pauluc--you're on a roll! I especially appreciated your last paragraph:

"You are most welcome to your interpretation and religious practice but I am asking nothing more than a little sympathy for those who do understand and practice science. Those who try to be honest and consistent in our reading of the Bible and understanding of God and the methods of science he has given to understand the physical world."

Bogdan Gheorghita

How do you understand something of which you have no information but your faith? How has God (whatever that is) given the methods of science? Is there any other world than the physical world?

I can only answer for myself.

I am a Christian with sympathies for the anabaptist and neo-orthodox traditions.
I am not a philosophical naturalist and believe there is more than can be understood by the experimental and hypothesis testing methods of science. Beauty peace and yearing for good may be explicable in neurosociological terms but I see them in the abstract as gifts from God.
I believe that the man Jesus is the revelation of God and is the clearest point at which we have any understanding of God. I acknowledge that what we do know of Him has like the old testament accounts of the search for the Divine been filtered through the cultural bias of the writers.
I do believe that when we make the leap of faith and become believers we are called to be his disciples and to practice the ethics of the Kingdom of heaven in a very practical way here and now.
I believe in miracles as in the intervention of God into human existence. Every time there is Grace and Goodness enacted it is the intervention of God.
I believe in the body of Christ as being nothing more and yet much more than his disciples.
I believe I perform miracles as in my work I prescribe medications that effect the good and promote life. Though I can explain it in physical and naturalistic terms I still see it as God actions.
In the same way I believe that science is one of the highest human acheivements and in it attempt at objective truth it reflects what I believe t reflects the character of God.

You may dismiss if as mystical but to me it enriches and gives meaning, hope and transcendence to existence.

Pauluc, ref your comments Mon, 01/16/2012 - 00:05
Like Prof Kent I too appreciated your comments. There needs to be room for people to struggle with reconciling bibilical and scientific beliefs. There needs to be room for those who, for instance see the majesty of God in the order and harmony of the laws we uncover, even though some of the consequences are uncomfortable for our traditional views. There needs to be a place where one's honesty about such a struggle does not find you banished from the denomination.

David,
I appreciate your passion and committment to your ideas, however, there needs to be room for those who think and honestly believe other than you do. A more profitable discussion would perhaps focus on how we can construct and run our SDA community to accomodate and grow together in understanding. At the moment threads on here and AToday descend into each 'side' taking pot shots at each other making it quite clear that never the twain shall meet.

Adventism is becoming a more dogmatic and imposing system by the minute.
Any coincidence with the current leadership's (remember my typo?...) ultraconservative and intolerant mentality?
What's next? Only black shoes when attending church? Or only plain collor neckties? No MacDonald's in Loma Linda?
Who can be proud of being a religious-nut like this? Is this the mark of the "best?" The best church on Earth, the true God's "remnant church?" --- Really???

pauluc

"This is fine as long as your doctrine of creation or origins is just that; a metaphysical statement of belief that there is a creator God that gives the meaning rather than the mechanism for the creation".

I agree with you. Please note that I propose no mechanism of creation beyond what the totality of scripture says, and it says very little, if anything at all, about mechanisms. That's part of the whole story of Job. God challenges him with profound questions relating to the the existence and function of the universe. He honestly acknowledged that he had no answers and placed his hands on his lips. For this honest admission God justified him.

The problem with us today is that, because we have discovered so much by scientific modalities, we attribute to such modalities a sort of omniscience; so that we do not know how or when to simply say we do not know - especially on questions of the most profound existential importance. Human pride and self-sufficiency would not allow it. After all do we not teach our children the absurdity that they can become whatever they want to become? All they have to do is just want it enough. How absurd to mislead our children with such fallacies! The point is that, along with all our wonderful potentials, human beings have serious limitations - simply by being humans.

On the issue of origins, the scriptures, which Christians believe to be inspired of God and truthful, make declarations about God as creator which, to my knowledge, has not been proven false or even implausible. It is also true that scientific discoveries have provide from time to time glimpses into nature that are consistent with and clearly complement Biblical affirmations. It often does raise a whole bunch of questions as well; and some thereby are very quick to debunk scripture - based solely, not on infallible proof, but on questions that the Bible and creationists cannot answer, on inferences, and on educated guesses.

Perhaps we can learn a whole lot from Job and reduce a whole lot of tension and confrontation, even as we continue to explore.

Let's be clear on something else. It should not be assumed, as comments by CI and Bogdan seems to assume rather flippantly, that because I and a host of others believe in Biblical creation we are such fools that we are automatically ant-science, or that I do not appreciate and value its contribution to understanding the universe. To engage in any conversation with that false assumption gets us nowhere, and would be a complete waste of time and energy.

Knowledge exists by itself. Every person should be allowed to access all knowledge available. It's a school's duty to inform students with as much knowledge as possible - they are paying for it.

To restrict the amount or type of knowledge delivered to students who pay for their education is to ROB them. It's literally a monetary and an intellectual robbery.

Deliberately confining the teaching content within a limited, pre-approved "box of knowledge" defined by some clergy (or fanatic lay people) is just dishonest and unethical. This should not be "The Mark of The Best!"

George,

I agree the schools should not limit access to knowledge. However, this does not mean they cannot approach all knowledge from an Adventist/Christian perspective. It is also cheating the students or the parents who sent them if their education is identical to what they could have received for 80,000 cheaper at a public university. It should be a matter of addition and not subtraction, though. We can open them to all truth, but we must uphold The Truth Jesus Christ which makes sense of it all.

John,

"It should be a matter of addition and not subtraction, though. We can open them to all truth, but we must uphold The Truth Jesus Christ which makes sense of it all."

Surprise: I agree with you.
Unfortunately, however, most times the main problem has not been addition but rather subtraction. In our schools "The Truth Jesus Christ" (sic)is always part of the curriculum, in classrooms and other activities as well. The problem usually surfaces when there is an attempt to include some "addition" and the "true conservatives" overreact in a paranoid mode, immediately bringing up accusations of apostasy, and other names. Not much room for a broader knowledge to be taught.

Actually, I don't remember of any case that in an adventist school there was a movement to suppress teaching "The Truth Jesus Christ(sic)." It's always the other way around. One of the most outrageous examples is the enormous damage the ultraconservatives anti-science fanatics did to LSU!
I wish they could think as you and I do on this matter.

Thanks for this great article.

Elaine,
clearly I was not limiting the definition to southern conservative protestant Christians; I don't know where you got the idea that I was. I am speaking of belief in religion in a broad sense vs. no belief in religion. Feel free to look it up if you like. As to Colorado it is actually a pretty Christian state, it's trending purple because of Hispanics, few of whom are unbelievers. The state has it's share of its mountain hippies, but there's also a lot of Evangelicals. None of this has to do with their superior health, however; that probably has more to do with 360 days of sunshine, and plenty of opportunity for exercise, mountain air... Southerners likewise are not unhealthy because of their religion, but because of their poverty.

"Why am I not suprised that Bogdan buys into the spaghetti monster argument? He continually shows that despite post-graduate education and a lifetime spent in religion he fails to grasp what religion and the pursuit of theology is at it's most basic level."

And yet, it was only yesterday that I invited you to have a very enlightening conversation of one theological topic, and you declined, writing: "I don't question your superior knowledge of religion." Can you please at least show some consistency?

"Here's why the spaghetti monster argument is a not a real argument but rather a sign that its' proponents refuse to exercise their grey matter, or never had the ability to do so in the first place:"

The convenient ad hominem, the mark of true thinking. Better yet, the mark of true Christianity.

"belief is not controlled by will power. The spaghetti monster "argument" assumes that I could just easily believe in it as in God. As if I just think to myself "the spaghetti monster is real, the spaghetti is real" suddenly boom he'll be real to me."

Have I ever suggested a scenario into which you would just will yourself into believing? I have offered the very situation in which you find it inescapable to believe in God: "If I wrote a book that claimed to be inspired and told the story of how the spaghetti monster created the universe..." Under these circumstances I hope, for the sake of your original argument, you could just as easily believe in the spaghetti monster.

"What makes this pretty much impossible is that if you're consciously trying to deceive yourself, by definition you're aware of the deception and can't fall for it."

You obviously know nothing about the human brain. Even at the perceptual level, you can very well be aware that your brain deceives you and still fall for an illusion. You do know that faith is not a way to know, yet still hold that God actually exists. Would you please read up on apophaticism?

"It's like forcing yourself to fall asleep, or to drown."

Yet people force themselves to sleep all the time - they take a pill. And drown all the time - they tie themselves to a heavy object. Just like that (oh, the power of analogies!) you tie yourself to traditions of belief and fallacious reasoning, and produce these aberrations.

"Also People would never die for make believe when they could simply choose to no longer believe."

Of course. That's why when you go to heaven you will get 72 eternal virgins and priapism. People die (and kill) for all sorts of ridiculous reasons.

"If religion is nonsense it should be compared to a mental illness or delusion not to make-believe. As such it is at least as offensive to compare religion to make-believe as it would be to say a cancer patient is imagining their cancer."

I've tired already. But I can't not mention this:

"Without God there's no reason to believe that it isn't all a masterful joke."

Actually, you couldn't believe that all is a masterful joke without God (or some similar form of intelligent agency).

.Christian Identity:
"The cities (measured in the Barna research as media markets) with the highest proportion of residents who describe themselves as Christian are typically in the South, including: Shreveport (98%), Birmingham (96%), Charlotte (96%), Nashville (95%), Greenville, SC / Asheville, NC (94%), New Orleans (94%), Indianapolis (93%), Lexington (93%), Roanoke-Lynchburg (93%), Little Rock (92%), and Memphis (92%).

The lowest share of self-identified Christians inhabited the following markets: San Francisco (68%), Portland, Oregon (71%), Portland, Maine (72%), Seattle (73%), Sacramento (73%), New York (73%), San Diego (75%), Los Angeles (75%), Boston (76%), Phoenix (78%), Miami (78%), Las Vegas (78%), and Denver (78%). Even in these cities, however, roughly three out of every four residents align with Christianity."

The assertion was about "believers" not about poverty, which was a straw man fallacy.
While poverty and Christianity are quite normal throughout the South, it is for the sociologists to examine this relationship. If it is true that more believers live in poverty, that is another interesting topic.

Elaine,

I don't know anyone who would argue that poverty tends to lead toward bad health, they have less access to healthcare, less access to health education, less time... I don't know why anyone would assume religion was the reason for Bible belt poverty rather than poverty, except if they have an agenda. I also don't know why anyone would claim that religion was the reason for southern poverty over the other reasons I mentioned. Sure it's a question for the sociologists, but I don't think they'll agree with you on your conclusions about it's connection to religion. If you really haven't heard about the connection between belief and health you can google it, you might not like what you find.

The figures I've shown did not have conclusions. To show relationships between believers and their sociological status was beyond the stats shown.

It was only given to show that the largest percentage of believers in Chrisianity were based in the southern states. This is tbrain surgery knowledge. Yes, poverty is found more often in the south as well as lower levels of education, even medical care. Do these affect one's religious beliefs? There were no comments given in the information shown, but it is well known that lower educational levels and poverty seem to correlate, and vice versa.

more than 150 years ago the Reconstruction area in the south left much of it devastated; yet there are more fast-growing and prosperous cities now that are written as examples: Charlotte, N.C., Atlanta, Ga, and several Texas cities plus other areas that have been featured in news reports.

David Read often states things like "Mainstream scientists rejected creationistic origin theories not because of observation but because of a philosophical commitment to naturalism"
Two articles in GRI's "Origins " vols 8 and 9 show that early geologists were creationists and developed the idea of long ages of the Earth FROM the evidence, often opposing evolution in favour of multiple creations. Much of the geologic column was worked out BEFORE considering fossils.

Bill:

Yes, his approach is "Your dates have some errors, therefore my hand waving must be correct".

This is the fundamental problem with all claims that "creation science" is valid. There is no appreciation of the vast amount of evidence on the one side, and the complete lack of any consistent framework on the other side. At least GRI has some honest workers who admit this, unlike the SS authors.

I have never asked you to reject the methods and techniques of science I am simply asking you to justify the point at which you abandon a naturalistic explanation and resort to the magical . . .

Pauluc, I abandon naturalism at jump street, right at the start, because I don't think "natural laws" are really natural at all. They were created by God and reflect God's order and creative genius. It is no breach of faith to "think God's thought's after him," as Kepler described scientific investigation. Or as Solomon says, "it is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the honor of kings [or scientists] to search it out." Prov. 25:2.

Typically, when mainstream science studies contemporary, repeating phenomena, it doesn't conflict with revealed religion, because it can be understood as trying to discover and explore the laws and mechanisms which God has established and created, and through which He normally works. But when mainstream science insists that all theories of origins must be naturalistic, it directly contradicts Bible history and revealed truth, and I cannot, dare not, go along it with. If I do, I am effectively placing human reason above revealed truth.

pauluc
"Combined with data on sharing of identical retroviral insertion sites it is hard to argue against relatedness by decent except by suggesting that God made it this way to look like they are related. Do we really want a deceptive God?".

Of course "it is hard to argue against relatedness". And the simple enough reason being that they were not designed by different designers. Does it not stand to reason that the recognizable similarities between a Toyota Camry and a Toyota Corolla are such, not because the smaller Corolla evolved into the larger Camry, or vice-versa, but because the same engineer - or at least teams of engineers from the same company - designed them using very similar but not identical ideas to create the two models?

Even a knowledgeable lay person can recognize Picasso's trademark signature and style in his different works of art. This is part and parcel of what creativity is about.

What do you mean by the question, "Do you really want a deceptive God?" What does deception have to do with this anyway? So what if God made them to look like they are related? Is that some sort of moral flaw? It seems to me that the fact that noses, mouths, ears, eyes, genes, etc. are common features of humans and most animals is one of the clearest confirmation of a common creator - not a persuasive argument for universal common evolutionary ascent (or descent, if you like).

I forgot to tell you: the "spaghetti monster" is not actually made of spaghetti and is not a monster. We don't know what he is made of, but we like to think he is nothing like anything we know and he's a "he". That - his grandiose exceptionality - is the only reason we call him a "monster". That and the fact that we are awed in front of him (we call it "fear"). The day will come when he will reveal his true name. Oh, bow down in front of the spaghetti monster, you infidels!

The spaghetti monster has created all the laws of the universe. He is therefore an intelligence outside this universe. Because nothing that is seen can be created by something that is seen (except, of course, cars and computers). What would then be the point of faith?

>>> "A good computer scientist or electrical engineer could explain how a computer works, but he couldn't begin to produce a credible "just so" story of how the computer could have come into being without human assistance."

Sure I can, and Sci Fi writers have describing how it could be so for decades.

Any sufficiently intelligent species, in almost any environment, could and would invent computers. Heck, I bet they even have them in heaven.

/Bevin

"Heck, I bet they even have them in heaven."

We know for sure they have books in heaven. It's not a stretch to think they might have upgraded their sin-cataloguing technology.

"We know for sure they have books in heaven. It's not a stretch to think they might have upgraded their sin-cataloguing technology."

It wouldn't be the first upgrade either. They had scrolls in Biblical times. We only know for sure they switched to books from EGW.

When did God create himself?

"Well, they did start the whole thing with an Apple"

Or so they say :)

David,

I attempted to rephrase what I said because apparently I wasn't very clear.

You write, "The challenge of explaining "the overall development of life on earth due to natural processes" is to explain where the information came from in the first place, and naturalistic science has not met that challenge."

Rather, the challenge of explaining the origin of life on earth due to natural processes is to explain where the information came from in the first place. It would be consistent with the evidence to suggest that God seeded the earth with basic organisms which then developed over time; however, I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility that the physical properties of the universe are such as to allow for the origin of life from spontaneously aggregating molecules. (I have to admit that even as I write that I am smiling at the leap of faith required to believe that!)

I was attempting to say, however awkwardly, that development which comes well after origin is similarly dependent on naturalistic processes whether on an individual scale or a macro scale. Hence, it is possible and even desirable to approach questions in science from a naturalistic perspective including the development of life on earth. I recognize that origins is another topic entirely and at this point in time it remains a rather dark black box.

You also write, "The problem for Darwinism isn't a "gap" in our knowledge, i.e., we don't know how purposeful information come into existence by random, non-directed processes, but rather that we do know that purposeful information does not come into existence by random, non-directed processes."

Again, I do not think creation was a random, non-directed process. I think God created the universe with purpose and a precise balance in physical properties and conditions so as to allow for life to be drawn into relationship with God. Also, while it seems unlikely to me, it is possible that as we discover more about the self organizing capacity of biological molecules this gap will be filled in. That would do nothing to shake my faith since I don't try to fit God into gaps. I assume it wouldn't shake yours either since you simply wouldn't believe the gap had been filled.

Seeing that our faith is secure, perhaps we can get along?

"Why anyone wants to stay in the Soviet system of mainstream science eludes me. Leave the evil empire; leave the dark side of the force. Join the creationists."

Now there's a plea that will sell well...

"There is no Eine Kleine Nachtmusik without Mozart."

Yes, there is. You could very well have the score without any name on it. It happens quite often actually. Just because we assume authorship for a piece of music (which is reasonable, even if it sounds like Cage) doesn't automatically mean we know the identity of the author.

Even if we accept such analogies, they prove nothing. You're still left with the whole range of possible gods that humans have ever invented. There are creationists among muslims too.

anybody for a science explanation of how the Grand Canyon proves the earth is older than Ussher, EGW, or David can fathom?

I want to go....

anybody else?
why not make this a Spectrum Camp Meeting.....
lets invite Cliff....and Ted.... and David to act as counter balance, and Doug (who used to live in a cave anyway), and my AUC classmate, Mark Finley who needs to be exposed to science.....

I can't wait for the explanations for the blown in sandy layers sandwiched between marine layers which
suggests there was more than one flood.

http://ncse.com/about/excursions/gcfaq

David
Apropos of the discussion of the technology in heaven I would suggest that you yourself do not seem to be keeping up with the thoughts of contemporary culture. Films such as iRobot and terminator are predicated on the idea some future time the complexity of computing devices wil become such that they will become responsible for their own improvement and development.

If script writers and science fiction writers can image a device of sufficient complexity that the device itself becomes its "intelligent designer" why can you not image a molecular device to be able to adapt to fulfil a function. We have such a device; It is called living material. We have for centuries made the distinction between inanimate and living objects. The distinction is simply that one can procreate, expand vary and adapt the other cannot.

That Wallace and Darwin described some properties of life is not at all surprising. What is surprising is that you should have as restricted view of life and animate material as you do of the provenance of scripture.

Dear Pauluc,
Thanks for your posts and for bringing up your study of immunology and the MHC. It reminded me of hearing, a few years ago, about the non-functioning gene / defective gene / pseudo gene L-gulonolactone oxidase which is a step in synthesis of Vitamin C. All of the members of the haplorrhini (simple-nosed) primate suborder have this mutated gene- including us. The strepsirrhini primate suborder has the functional gene and can make their own vitamine C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-gulonolactone_oxidase

I showed this to a YEC friend back along and I was given the "common design- common designer" explanation for our having the non-functional gene. Also, I was told, the creator instructed us to eat fruit and other sources of the vitamin so he didn't need to give us the active gene.

What hangs me up on this is, the mutation which inactivates the production of the enzyme is the same mutation for all the haplorrhini primates. Additional mutations are found on the inactive gene and the number of common mutations with our inactive gene increases in primates evolutionarily closer to us. This perfectly supports what should be seen in descent with modification by natural selection and common ancestry. This is one example. There are many more.

One could claim a creator or a deceiver made our genes this way to obscure the truth. I can not see either as being true.
Thanks for posting. dl

dl,
There are many lines of evidence for common descent, but, IMO, it's genetics that presents the most convincing. Unfortunately it is also the most complicated and technical which makes it difficult for laypeople to understand, including me. And also unfortunately, there are too many creationists who intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent the data, and too many willing to listen.

Most people see genes as directly tied with function and so of course chimps and humans will be close genetically; after all we are the most similar in function. What they are completely missing is the nature of mistakes and how they are preserved. The patterns that we can see - that we would not expect to see if there was no common descent - are amazing.

Pauluc, the fact that humans can create very sophisticated machines with a capacity for self-diagnosis and artificial intelligence isn't an argument for accidental self-organization. The machines have been created by people to "think" to the greatest extent possible. That just makes the analogy between humans' creation of machines and God's creation of human beings and other living things even closer and more apt; it does not make machines an analog to purposeless self-organization.

The cultural phenomenon you mention is interesting. There has indeed been a long line of novels and motion pictures in which machines rebel against humans and seize control of the levers of power. In addition to the films you mention, there was of course "2001: A Space Odyssey" ("open the pod bay doors, HAL"):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSIKBliboIo.
(Siri, of the iphone 4s, doesn't want to talk aoubt HAL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN1Hp6jhh0U&feature=related )

The same basic plot was recycled in the recent film "Eagle Eye" and even in the recent animated feature, "WallE."

But the problem with computers is not computers but the humans who write malicious code for them. Why do we buy expensive anti-virus software? Because we're afraid of bad computers? No, because we're afraid of bad people who write malicious code. The line of films from "2001" up to the present represents an unrealized fear. To paraphrase Shakespeare, "The Fault, dear Hollywood screenwriter, lies not in our computers, but in ourselves."

The problem of malicious code is analogous to the problem of sin. When we see things in creation that are suboptimal---disease, parasitism, predation, death, etc.---we see the results of sin, not what God intended in the beginning.

Harry Elliott said, "'Creationists' are crazy to argue that Genesis 1-3 is literal, because if it's literal it's WRONG. If it's not literal, then conflicts with the clear evidence are immaterial."

Well, now, there's a well-reasoned answer that will stop all creationists in their tracks. How could we have been so blind?! We just needed good old Harry to come along and explain it to us.

Fact is, Harry, that there are plenty of scientists who would take an opposite view; who see the evidence as agreeing fully with a literal understanding of Genesis 1-3. As usual, the skeptic makes unwarranted assumptions about the past and then presents them as "evidence" against the plain meaning of Scripture. There is one rule that all students of Scripture need to remember: if science appears to conflict with Scripture, then either science is wrong, having misinterpreted the evidence, or our understanding of Scripture is not as complete as it might be. In this case Scripture is fairly complete and very plain; and all attempts to explain away the plain meaning of Gen. 1-11, are somewhat like trying to drain the ocean with a teaspoon. Evidence for the flood is overwhelming--but explained away, even though it fits the Genesis narrative. The hard evidence that puts an upper limit of about 10,000 years on the age of the earth, is ignored if favor of unreliable dating methods. The complete lack of evidence for evolution ever having happened (such as, no transitional fossils, and no viable method for acquiring the necessary genetic information to go from a single cell to a highly complex organism) is glossed over. I've come to the conclusion that even if God Himself came down on Sinai and stated plainly that the earth was created in 6 literal days, about 6000 years ago, you guys wouldn't believe it; much as when God Himself walked the earth and the majority called Him a heretic and a blasphemer.

Pauluc said, "life is precisely defined as self replicative and adaptive and follows a natural process no less than the motion of the planets and the laws of gravity and particle physics describe natural process."

You speak as would an atheist or deist. Life is not a "natural process," which inevitably self replicates. It is continually sustained and guided by God, as are the planets in motion. If we believe that God is omnipotent, we diminish His abilities when we discount His involvement in the workings of the laws of physics. He didn’t just wind up the universe and let it run.

Horatio
Against my better judgement I will respond for although I have no knowledge of your background or education I have no confidence that you are at all willing to look at evidence except through the filter of your own presuppositions. You clearly have not been willing to look at the freely available data on shared retroviral insertions and give a cogent response to my previous question before dismissing the question out of hand for vague arguments about common designers.

I did not deny that life and the planets are sustained and guided by God in as much as the processes are based on natural law that may well reflect His characteristic. I am arguing that the history of life reflects intrinsic properties of life that can be described by natural process and natural law in the same way as planetary motion. neither is magical.

I am still unclear however what for you is a natural process or what you think physical laws are. Do you think that the planets move because of a magical force delivered according to Gods will or if they can be described by laws such as gravity and conservation of angular momentum. Perhaps you would like to clarify.

Of course gravity and planetary motions can be described by laws of physics, but those laws do not exist or operate independently of the Creator. He is perfectly capable (and has at times) suspended and altered those laws, as when the sun went backwards on the sundial for Hezekiah, and when it stopped for Joshua, unless of course you believe that those are just myths. These laws may not be miraculous, in the sense that Jesus performed miracles, but they are kept operational by the power of God.

"Shared retroviral insertions" cannot explain the jump from single cell to single human. It's all pure speculation, loaded down with a lot of technical jargon, which is worthy of a better cause. Show me the transitional fossils. The top scientists know they they don't exist. It's a dirty little secret.

"It is continually sustained and guided by God, as are the planets in motion. If we believe that God is omnipotent, we diminish His abilities when we discount His involvement in the workings of the laws of physics."

Superstition and falacious reasoning.

"I deny..."

Very useful, indeed.

"It's all pure speculation, loaded down with a lot of technical jargon, which is worthy of a better cause."

It sounds a lot like theology.

Horatio
We all understand. You have been indoctrinated and you believe God is pleased when you "shall not be moved". I've read about people who believe humans have not traveled to the moon, who reject evidence and reason and argue endlessly with frivolous scientific "reasons" against scientific reality. Your arguments about science are simply are not useful.

No offense intended.

Harry

Yes, Horatio, inquiring minds want to know.

Dear Beth,
Thanks for your response.
I've never loved life on earth more than since I came to understand this relatedness from deep time... humanity included. It's great to be alive and full of curiosity and wonder.

Dear Professor Kent,
I've appreciated your posts for ~6 months now.... a noobie. :) I have a tendency to be irreverent but intend no harm. I tend to take things very seriously and it can be a burden. In my early 20s, after three years working as a nurse, I took it seriously that I needed to know more about how to take care of my patients. I went back to school... premed in chemistry-biochem. I am fortunate for the privilege to study medicine and have seven years of post grad residency, three in pathology, an internship in surgery followed by anesthesiology. I am fortunate for 20 years of honoring the trust my patients put in me to keep them safe in the O.R.
In deep humility and knowledge of all I don't know and can't prove, I'm convinced of the truth of natural selection and common descent with modification. The qualities that help make me a good md are the same which lead me to make this statement. 25+ years ago, as I was stunned by this realization, I felt separated from my church, my culture, in that I felt sure I would not be understood or accepted. Is this the case? Was I wrong? Watching this site since last spring has shown me I'm not alone. Thanks to those who desire to know. I'm one of you. Regards, dl

Deterministic reductionist are a small subset of scientists just as fundamentalists are a small subset of Christians.

A very apt analogy, because just as fundamentalists are the most philosophically consistent Christians, determinists are the most philosophically consistent scientists.

BTW, I took a looked at the Amazon page for "Did my Neurons Make me do it?" There were only three reviews, and the most cogent review held that Murphy and Brown did not make their case. Murphy and Brown seem to argue that our multiple and extremely complex biological systems interact to mediate and constrain simple neurological signals, and thus turn us into a free moral agents, even though everything still has a physical cause. But as their reviewer notes, "The rules of the system are still the rules of physics. Nothing they hypothesize departs from a clockwork, mechanistic view of the universe. And, such a view would seem to imply that free will does not exist since the system is bound by its rules . . ."

It is interesting that Murphy rejects a dualistic human nature, which Adventists also reject, whereas most Christians accept dualism, or the idea that man is a combination of body and soul. But the idea that humans are free moral agents, and are not reduceable to physical laws, doesn't depend upon acceptance of the pagan Greek idea of an immortal soul.

I would contend that Christians are at core believers in Christ as God incarnate.

Exactly, and the belief that Christ is God incarnate is inconsistent with the belief that God created the universe, then left it to its own devices.

@David Read:

Thank you for your posts. They are always interesting to read. I am not sure that Spectrum is the right place to discuss about Creationism since many people here even don't believe in the veracity of the Bible and are, in fact, not really true believers (at least, some here are honest and recognize that they are atheists or agnostics but many others here are fooling themselves).

This being said, the mockers are right on one thing: it is up to us, creationists, to bring the proof of what we proclaim, or at least to propose a plausible model.

Do you know of another forum where serious people discuss of the subject?

David

"Exactly, and the belief that Christ is God incarnate is inconsistent with the belief that God created the universe, then left it to its own devices.'

Not if like the parable of the tenants in Matthews 22 He left it to its own devices operating according to His laws until he became part of that creation in an overarching one time event to give an ethic which is precisely what Phillipians 2 and the Gospels are really about. A politic and ethic for a spiritual kingdom that is within us as we operate in a physical world described by natural law.

The Murphy book is not light reading and I suggested it only as a book that gives a perspective that has been helpful to me in understanding the dilemma of physicalism and determinism, a dilemma for which there are only superficial answers. I know you take hearsay seriously with your understanding of science but I'm not sure I would so easily dismiss a book on the basis of an amazon reviews. I suspect your book would not at all fare well by that criteria.

@Pauluc:

What you are not considering is that many with a science education (biologists, doctors, researchers, etc) don't believe in evolution. Contrary to what you say, genetics don't really support evolution. Yes, we can see some similarities in the genetic codes of different life forms but the reasons could be multiple such as common ancestors or a common "maker" (God, aliens, you name it).

There is no proven mechanism showing how a life form could evolve into another species. Everything we hear are just conjectures and speculations. Maybe some evidences point toward a particular direction but real proof? None.

Above all, there is no real explanation as for where the information in the DNA comes from. Any addition of new functionality requires additional information and instructions. How is this done?

Big mystery.

Of course, there is the problem of knowing how life started on earth. Another big mystery. Since nobody has been able to explain its appearance on our planet some biologists proposed the idea that life came from out of space, for example from comets. This was a clever way to push away an irritating problem. But the question remains open.

So instead of thinking that those who don't believe in evolution are uneducated maybe it is time for you to really study the issue and maybe investigate the reasons why some other educated people with PHDs (or other degrees) in biology, biochemistry, genetics and other sciences don't believe that the theory of evolution is correct. If you do that, maybe you would learn something new.

@ dl:

"In deep humility and knowledge of all I don't know and can't prove, I'm convinced of the truth of natural selection and common descent with modification. The qualities that help make me a good md are the same which lead me to make this statement. 25+ years ago, as I was stunned by this realization, I felt separated from my church, my culture, in that I felt sure I would not be understood or accepted. Is this the case? Was I wrong? Watching this site since last spring has shown me I'm not alone. Thanks to those who desire to know. I'm one of you. Regards, dl"

There is no question in my mind that natural selection and descent with modification are real. No matter one's view, the honest, informed biologist must concede that substantial change has taken place among life forms since the creation. On the one hand, I personally am not convinced that all life forms have descended from a single ancestor; while there may be substantial evidence to support this view, there remain a number of very difficult problems. On the other hand, there are very difficult problems for a literal creation and short term chronology. I'm not going to get into futile arguments about the evidence.

For me, I find much in the Bible that sustains my faith, and I just can't get beyond God's words written by finger in stone. I may be wrong, but I'll trust God rather than my own judgment for now. But I'll tolerate and sit next to anyone who views things differently. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "I'm one of you," but what's fortunate for all of us is that our knowledge--and whether we remain in the Church or are pushed out--will never save us. We will be saved only by grace through our faith--our willingness to simply put our heart, our will, our trust in God's hands. I think we're all in this thing together.

In heaven, there will be both creationists and evilutionists; both conservatives and liberals; and both traditionalists and progressives. There will be thieves and murderers as well; the Bible makes this clear. We could choose to work together today to win souls to Jesus, or we could be diverted from the gospel message and invest our emotions and energy to fighting each other instead. I've always wished that SDAs were known as the people who really, really love Jesus. Unfortunately, this is not how others see us. Are we being true to our calling when we treat each other as we so frequently do--especially when it comes to this very divisive and ugly topic? I don't think so.

"In heaven, there will be both creationists and evilutionists; both conservatives and liberals; and both traditionalists and progressives. There will be thieves and murderers as well; the Bible makes this clear."

No atheists, huh? :)

David
We now get to the crux of the issue. Its about rigidty of belief and personality. You say

"What you're loath to admit to yourself is that you're slowly ushering yourself to atheism. You still cling to the belief that Jesus was the Son of God (which, admittedly, is more than many Spectrum posters believe), but you've already reduced Christ's earthly mission to giving "a politic and ethic.".........
"I'm not interested in a "Christianity" that is reduced to ethics, and I don't know any religious people who are. That's why we're so inflexibly opposed to altering the Adventist doctrine of origins."

How many time must I repeat it. I am a Christian because I am a disciple of Jesus as such I am not an atheist or a philosophical naturalist. Me becoming an atheist is of no pastoral concern to you as have articulated clearly on educate truth where you have a bigger fan base to induce less temperate statements. No it reflects your personal concerns. If you concede on any point then in your schemata you must reject all of Christianity because as you said fundamentalist and atheists are the only consistent philosophies. To you the only honest position is one of these two. But why is this so? Your "inflexibiity" and rigidity of belief gives you comfort and security and reflects your character but what of the young person who may not feel so comfortable with a rigidity they see as denying reality? Your message is that they are really atheists so get out of my church.

It is fascinating that statistically you fit well the profile of a person rejecting the concept of evolution. Miller et al (science 2006 p765) show besides low genetic literacy that conservative political views, a pro-life stance and self identification as conservative are associated with rejection of evolution. Politically the conservative position you espouse has been linked to physiology of the startle reflex [ http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1842523,00.html ] so your ideas may indeed have been determined by the laws of physics and biology and not entirely by free will or logic.

I appreciate that you are able to maintain your internal and external millieau through your rigid beliefs and will try to accomodate you as much as possible but my pastoral duty to you must be tempered by my concern for people young and otherwise who do not share your psychophysiology.

David,

You wrote:

A very apt analogy, because just as fundamentalists are the most philosophically consistent Christians, determinists are the most philosophically consistent scientists.

This may have been true before the discovery of quantum mechanics in the early 1900s but now, with the inherent uncertainty understood to be present at the very heart of matter, no self consistent scientist can be a philosophical determinist.

Also, just because we can understand and observe a process, does not remove God from the originator and sustainer of that process - as Pauluc was trying to point out.

Tim

"...does not remove God from the originator and sustainer of that process"

I know it's useless, but let me ask: when was God "the originator and sustainer" of natural processes? And how do we know it's God who's not removed by science, and not the spaghetti monster?

"the dignity of my faith"

There is no such thing. Even you don't believe in "the dignity of faith".

"All the examples you provided are not proofs of evolution. There are just elements that can be interpreted in different ways (and naturally evolution could be one of these ways to interpret the evidence)."

If evolution is a legitimate interpretation of the facts (as you apparently admit), it only remains to be seen if there is a better competing interpretation. How does creationism explain goose bumps? Or, on a more serious note, where is the creationist theory of pathogens? How does creationism contribute to better treatments of diseases? Even admitting that creationism would fit some of the facts, its power of explanation and actual usefulness are dramatically limited.

@Bogdan:

Creationism can have the same power of explanation as any other theory and can be as useful. It all depends how you use it.

Also, realize that the purpose of creationism is not to treat diseases in the same way as the purpose of the theory of evolution is not to treat diseases. The primary goal is to try to understand and explain, if possible.

I have enjoyed following and occasionally joining the conversation on this topic of creation both on this thread and many others over the past few years. I just watched a short video in which I really resonated with biologist Kerry Fulcher's thoughts on an unfolding creation; but, I share this link because his sentiments at the end are ones that I deeply wish we could all agree on.

"...I'm going to allow freedom and grace for someone else to hold a different view and hopefully we'll be able to interact with each other and inform each other along the way..."

http://biologos.org/blog/an-unfolding-creation

pauluc - Thu, 01/19/2012 - 01:52

Prof kent, I can only endorse your sentiments and say I appreciate your voice of reason moderation and grace on these questions of faith and science. I may disagree on your stance that the evidence is for creation of man in recent times but as a Christian who is theologically neo-orthodox I can only echo your sentiments that Christianity is all about Christ and his revelation of God in his manifestation of Love and Grace. Everything else pales in insignificance.

I think you recognize this from prior posts here and at ET, Pauluc, but just to clarify, my stance for the creation of man in recent times is based largely on faith, not evidence. I certainly reject the claim of some, notably Sean Pitman at ET, that "overwhelming evidence" supports my view. That's wishful thinking (if not borderline delusion).

Anonymous7 - Thu, 01/19/2012 - 08:08

Also you are wrong when you said that scientists who reject evolution do it as a matter of faith. They do it based on their knowledge of science (in fact, some became believers after studying and doing research in science, not before). When you study evolution deeply, you cannot help but notice how "empty" it is and this from the start.

I personally know of many scientists--including a number of SDA biologists--who reject the big picture of evolution (abiogenesis and a common ancestor of all life forms on earth). All concede it is a matter largely of faith. I know of none who base it largely or entirely on evidence. I'm not saying such individuals aren't out there, but I'm confident they're an underwhelming minority amongst believing scientists.

Examples of evidence that indicate a young earth:

The strength of the earth's magnetic field. At it's present rate of decay (based on a half life of 1400 years), the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as a magnetic star only 10,000 years ago. So one either has to deny the uniformity of the decay rate, or conclude that the earth isn't as old as many scientists believe.

Not enough helium in the atmosphere. It does not escape into space. It may even be entering earth's atmosphere from space. Present decay rate (of thorium and uranium) indicates an age of not more than 10,000 years.

Either one of these is damaging to the "millions of years" hypothesis. Explain them away if you will, but they are only 2 of many pieces of evidence which indicate a young earth.

Horatio,
What Rich has said is very relevant - check before posting this sort of "evidence".
For the record, the Earth's magnetic field has been known to change in strength and reverse in the past, as seen especially in the record in rocks as you move away from mid-ocean ridges, so changing strength can not be projected back indefinitely.
It has been known for decades that helium can be ionized in the upper atmosphere and ejected by the Earth's magnetic field as part of a polar wind at a rate approximately equal to production.

As I said, the skeptics will always explain them away, because there is an a priori commitment to science, rather than Scripture as the standard by which these things are measured. It is useless to even try to post more evidence, because it has always "been dealt with extensively and conclusively." No further arguments will hold any weight.

In other areas of science, current theories are sometimes disproven, and new ones accepted. But in the science of origins, the book is closed; any evidence that appears to be contrary to established dogma is rejected out of hand.

If you guys want to believe these fairy tales, your free to do so, of course. As for me, I don't have enough faith for that.

Horatio

In suggesting that your 2 claims are damaging to the "millions of years" hypothesis you manifest a misunderstanding of hypothesis testing and science. Like most of the creationist sites and creationists I know you imagine that if you can show problems in the existing and accepted paradigm then your view no matter how preposterous must somehow gain scientific credibility. This is not how it works in science even if it may in law. Even if your critiques was of value and had no been discounted and explained by the published evidence, to displace the "millions of years" hypothesis you have to propose an alternative hypothesis and show multiple and repeatable critical experimental evidences that do not invalidate your hypothesis but are not explicable by the current model.

Unfortunately as some at the GRI have indicated such an hypothesis or theory of creation has not even been formulated with detail sufficient to call it scientific let alone tested rigorously. This is why honest creationists such as Prof Kent and some at the GRI accept that creation is a faith proposition not a position for which there is scientific data. This is the underlying reason that there is no creationist research in the scientific literature.

For example you wish to postulate that all the existing species on earth today derive from an overwhelming population and genetic bottleneck 4000 years ago. What is the ecological molecular and genetic model that creationists propose? It is almost impossible to pin them down to specific testable models but the options are
1] There was a limited number of kinds on the ark from which the current millions of species now covering the earth were derived by genetic changes over a period of 4000 year. There are 2 options for this; It can be done by natural process of genetic variation and selection in which case you are essentially postulating some hyperevolutionary process which immediately destroys any argument you have with the conventional models of evolution of species over long time periods.
Alternatively you may postulate that the post-deluge world was populated by continuing local divine creations to match species to their environment. Unfortunately this process of supernatural explanation then puts it outside the realm of scientific testing and it becomes non-science.
2] All the ancestors of the existing populations of animals extant today were put on the ark by miraculous means. Again this puts it outside the domain of testable science and it becomes a matter of faith.

Whichever of the options you choose you are left with a either an non-tenable scientific position or a faith position. To accept creation as a faith position is at least honest and a logical extension of your suppositions but it is not scientific and to pretend it is deprecates anything else you may then say about faith itself. My advice is to accept the faith position and avoid the temptation to pretend you have any expertise or a knowledge base from which to critique science as it does no credit to a follower of Christ to be seen as lying for God.

Pauluc, you are making the mistake of assuming that what the Bible calls "kinds" is the same as what we call species. No reputable creationist believes this. True, there were a limited number of kinds, but, given the genetic diversity in a family such as that of dogs, it is not too difficult to see how rapidly diversification could take place.

I occasionally visit EducateTruth for entertainment, and the exchanges today at the following thread between David Read and Bill Sorensen are a hoot:

http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/supreme-court-decision-on-church-em...

They are debating justification by works (Sorensen's position) vs. faith only (Read's position--and that of virtually every SDA, including E.G. White). Read is getting unanimous thumbs-ups, whereas Sorensen is losing all credibility. Kind'a sad to see this debate, actually, as I think the Bible and EG White are perfectly clear, and the Church has it right (post-1888).

Kind'a funny to see EducateTruthers go after each other; and they will do so more if the antagonists (like myself at one time) stay out of it.

Horatio,
On another thread you said :"Living in denial accomplishes nothing. Admitting past errors and resolving not to repeat them is commendable."
Excellent advice. Ae you prepared to listen to it?