Print
BREAKING: La Sierra University Board of Trustees Releases Two Statements
Today, La Sierra University Board of Trustees issued two press releases: Statement of Support for the Adventist View of Creation
The Board of Trustees is fully mindful of La Sierra University’s responsibilities and commitments as a Seventh-day Adventist institution of higher education. This includes whole-hearted support for the doctrines and teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as defined by the 28 Statements of Fundamental Beliefs, specifically fundamental belief #6:
God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made “the heaven and the earth” and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was “very good,” declaring the glory of God. (Gen. 1;2; Ex. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Heb.11:3).
The Board of Trustees has heard and taken to heart the concern that Seventh-day Adventist beliefs and teachings have not been given appropriate priority in biology curriculum and instruction. Specifically, the Board is committed to assuring that the teaching of the theory of evolution takes place within the context of the Adventist belief regarding creation.
The Board of Trustees is committed to a spirit of open inquiry and discussion in the university’s classrooms and laboratories. The Board intends that when varying viewpoints are raised they will be heard with due respect.
In its commitment to the integrity of the university’s mission, the Board of Trustees is dedicated to inspire, challenge, encourage and support the faculty in their sacred academic work. Further, the Board embraces its responsibility for ongoing evaluation and assessment.
“It is the work of true education to . . . train the youth to be thinkers and not mere reflectors of other men's thought.” (Ellen White, Education, p. 17). The Board of Trustees continues to affirm that both academic responsibility and commitment to Adventist beliefs are important parts of a vibrant university whose mission is to seek, to know, and to serve God and His children.
VOTED November 11, 2009 by the La Sierra University Board of Trustees
_____
La Sierra University Board of Trustees Affirms University’s Support for Church’s Creation Doctrine
The La Sierra University Board of Trustees has reaffirmed the school’s foundational commitments as a Seventh-day Adventist institution of higher education with particular focus on the Church’s official doctrine of creation.
The board’s first action supported the university’s responsibilities to the Church through:
- Committing to a spirit of open inquiry and discussion in the university’s classrooms and laboratories.
- Inspiring, challenging, and supporting the university’s faculty in their sacred academic work.
- Affirming that both academic responsibility and commitment to Adventist beliefs are important parts of a vibrant university, as articulated in Ellen White’s statement “It is the work of true education to…train the youth to be thinkers and not mere reflectors of other men’s thought.” (Education, p. 17).
In a second action, the board called for scientists and administrators in Adventist higher education to work together with Church leadership in a study group. This group would propose a college curriculum fulfilling the General Conference Executive Committee’s call for a scientifically rigorous affirmation of a literal, recent six-day creation. The study group would obtain assistance from the Geoscience Research Institute in forming model course outlines in life and earth sciences. These could inform curricular revision throughout Adventist higher education.
Additionally, the board requested that a research project be launched to study the spiritual development of Adventist students in higher education throughout the North American Division, with special attention to students in the sciences. It recommended that La Sierra University’s John Hancock Center for Youth and Family Ministry, home of the ValueGenesis research project, coordinate the program in cooperation with the North American Division Office of Education.
The actions voted at the board meetings of November 11-12, grew out of several days of board discussions on the issue.
“These board actions are an important, positive moment for La Sierra University,” said Randal Wisbey, university president. “Our board members and faculty take seriously their obligation to teach our students in a manner that develops a mature, enduring faith while thoroughly preparing them for careers in the sciences.
“At the same time, our board members recognize this important conversation requires thoughtful input from the entire spectrum of Adventist higher education,” President Wisbey said.
The board identified the university’s new general biology seminar, launched during fall quarter 2009, as an important initial addition to the La Sierra biology curriculum. Required of all students as they begin the university’s General Biology sequence, the seminar brings students together with scholars from biology, religious studies, and the Geoscience Research Institute. It provides time to explore the role and function of science, the importance of faith, and the relevant doctrinal positions of Seventh-day Adventists.
“The La Sierra Biology faculty have faith that God is their Creator and Sustainer,” said James Wilson, Ph.D., department chair. “Each faculty member understands the important responsibility to facilitate broad education in biology in ways that embrace the Adventist perspective of God as the Creator of all things.”
“Moving forward, the board, administration, and faculty are committed to serving our students as they study the important issues of faith and science,” said Ricardo Graham, chair of the La Sierra University Board of Trustees. “As board members, we are appreciative of the wide range of comments on the issue shared by thoughtful church members, and for the many prayers offered during our discussions.”
The complete text of the board’s two actions can be found on the university’s website at www.lasierra.edu/board.
User login
Recent
- Rescued LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Defender of THE Faith Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Roger S The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- George Tichy Pacific Union Conference Calls Special Constituency Meeting to Authorize Equality in Ordination
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Pagophilus Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Fred Eastman Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
Newsletter
Organizations
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
It looks good on paper, or should I say on the computer screen. Let's wait to see if it is followed. I am sure that the professors at LSU know that they are under a very well focused microscope. The church and the whole Adventist world will be watching.
And here's a big problem with the second resolution (linked to above).
In 'resolve' point #2 it states (emphasis mine):
"2. Request the Study Group to obtain assistance from the Geoscience Research Institute in the form of two model course outlines—one each in the life and earth sciences. The goal would be for the outlines, and the scientific literature cited in them, to constitute the scientifically rigorous evidence in support of Adventist belief in a literal, recent six-day creation. Such course outlines could then inform curricular revision throughout Adventist higher education."
Note what I have italicized. Science doesn't work the way they want. This 'Resolve #2' is saying they want to do rigorous science but also reach a predetermined conclusion. But real science is agnostic about conclusions. If the evidence points to a recent six-day creation then fine. But since the present overwhelming scientific conclusion is that it does not point in that direction what they have written looks for all the world like an oxymoron to me.
Not anymore than a trial is an oxymoron.
Each side presents its case and the juror decides. Much better than having some pro evolution professor decide it for you and only teach what he believes.
Michael
"This group would propose a college curriculum fulfilling the General Conference Executive Committee’s call for a scientifically rigorous affirmation of a literal, recent six-day creation."
Good luck with that! You can have an affirmation, you can even have a rigorous affirmation but you will not have a scientific affirmation.
Rich and Beth, excellent points on the misunderstanding of science. Last I checked, teaching by committee hasn't worked too well.
Despite the top down approach to curricula. . .things could have been a lot worse.
It does seem that the Educate Truth crowd lost significant ground today as much of the subtext of their organizing has focused on getting some of the biology department faculty fired.
The Press-Enterprise writes:
According to Shane Hilde, what "ultimately is what happens in these situations" did not happen. At the top governance level.
In addition, despite a lot of press, online activity and a lot of fervor, they failed to reach their signature goal by 40%.
That is a win for academic freedom and an Adventist future that values unity in diversity.
They actually released three documents. The one that is not posted here is the resolution regarding a scientifically rigorous affirmation of SDA beliefs regarding creation.
You may read that document here: http://www.educatetruth.com/articles/lsu-board-news-release-and-actions/
Shane Hilde
Yes, three documents, but only two are statements released to the press. As a close reader will see, the two releases are the board resolution translated into two public statements.
http://www.lasierra.edu/index.php?id=1975
Whereas, La Sierra University (“LSU”) is a Seventh-day Adventist institution of higher education that is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges; and
Whereas, LSU, by its mission and its accreditation, is committed to preparing well-rounded students who have a solid foundation in the Seventh-day Adventist faith, beliefs, and practices, who have critical thinking skills, and have a thorough and rigorous education in their fields of study. This includes in-depth understanding of the data, assumptions, theorems, conclusions, and criticism that represent current mainstream thought in their academic disciplines; and
Whereas, LSU faculty and administration are expected to provide personal support and guidance to students in matters of faith and learning, including challenges to their religious beliefs arising from the subject matter within their chosen disciplines; and
Whereas, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has sponsored three international conferences on Faith and Science from 2002 to 2004 that resulted in an “Affirmation of Creation” document; and
Whereas, the General Conference issued an official Response to the “Affirmation of Creation” document that was drafted and voted by the General Conference Executive Committee. Point 4 of this “Response” reads as follows (underlining added for emphasis):
4.
and;
Whereas, the LSU Board believes that it would be appropriate and advantageous for Adventist higher education to develop a curriculum that specifically includes “a scientifically rigorous…affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation.”
Therefore, the LSU Board resolves to:
The Board of Trustees adopts this resolution at its meeting of November 12, 2009 and authorizes the LSU President to convey the request and recommendations of this resolution to the Association of Adventist Colleges and Universities.
© La Sierra University 2009
Excelent! Amen...
:-)
These documents appear to spell out the death knell to academic freedom, freedom of thought and inquiry, and the legitmacy of geological and biological degrees in Adventist academia.
Anyone who's understanding differs from the above narrow scope, is no longer welcome.
These documents could have been written by Clifford Goldstein, as they are what he has been saying for years.
Again, we have the administrators determining "truth" and what might be appropriate, as opposed to those who actually specialize in the disciplines.
This is to the sciences, what Glacier View was to theology.
What this amounts to is kicking the can down the road. The study groups makeup will determine the future of our Colleges Scientific curricula. Which is very dangerous because the makeup will likely be composed of SDA teachers who are told that they have to affirm a literal 6 day creation. So you already know that the study group will be biased toward that outcome. So what they will do is try to compose the "scientifically rigorous evidence in support of Adventist belief in a literal, recent six-day creation." Of course if there actually was a scientifically rigorous evidence in support of the literal 6 day belief none of this would even be an issue. When the science is so overwhelming against it the only way they can do it is to ignore much of the science which goes against their belief. Thus it cannot be scientifically rigorous in any true sense. So they have in effect declared that they will teach their beliefs despite the science in science classes.
Of course no one needs to accept the 6 literal day interpretation it is just that one interpretation and it has serious problems even before you start to examine the science.
All and all I would say this is a victory for the fundamentalists of Adventism as they have forced the church into a position where they have to give into the fundamentalist position. they just did not get what they wanted as soon as they wanted it.
Ron
Adventist Media and Conversation Blog
Why are some Adventists so afraid of truth? Because living with our eyes closed is more comfortable?
We will know when we have grown up: we will have learned to accept change as a good thing. And that time is not yet come.
Nice try Alexander, liberals lost and you know it. Short earth creationism not evolution was affirmed.
North American no longer rules. The accusers may all be nuts or fruitcakes or has beens--But creationism is the rock bottom of SDA theology and ethos. Few if any understood the Glacier View Issue. Everybody understands the difference between Creation and Evolution. There just isn't any hiding place.
Tom is right. Liberals in America rule no more. Real Adventists in North America and around the world have zero tolerance for liberals that deny the Creator God and promote homosexuality.
We are the future of Adventism. Welcome to our church.
Mr Frame,
What have to won?
What the church has won, will pale in comparision to what it loses, as the educated, the thoughtful, the visionaries, continue to stream out the door...
Who in their right mind would willingly be apart of a group that dictates, what one can, and cannot believe, and what one can, and cannot think?
The one sentence I loved most in this whole thing is, “It is the work of true education to . . . train the youth to be thinkers and not mere reflectors of other men's thought.” (Ellen White, Education, p. 17). I, as a previous homeschooling mom of two now-grown children, have had this mantra for 30+ years! That's how my children were raised and educated. They both are truly "thinkers and not reflectors." That being said, I must admit that neither of my children are members of the Adventist church today. Is that so surprising?
"The progress of reform depends upon a clear recognition of fundamental truth. While, on the one hand, danger lurks in a narrow philosophy and a hard, cold orthodoxy, on the other hand, there is great danger in a careless liberalism. The foundation of all enduring reform is the law of God. We are to present in clear, distinct lines the need for obeying this law."
The Ministry of Healing (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Publ. Assn., 1942), p.129.
"Many have lost very much in that they have not opened the eyes of their understanding to discern the wondrous things in the law of God. On the other hand, religionists generally have divorced the law and the gospel, while we have, on the other hand, almost done the same from another standpoint. We have not held up before the people the righteousness of Christ and the full significance of His great plan of redemption. We have left out Christ and His matchless love, brought in theories and reasonings, and preached argumentative discourses."
Faith and Works (Nashville, Tenn.: Southern Publ. Assn., 1979), pp. 15,16
Any way you spin it - progressives lost this round.
These statements by LSU affirmed belief in a literal six day creation.
This poses a dilemma for evolutionary professors at LSU.
There wasn't much more the Board of Trustees could have done but confirm Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet!
Maybe Alexander Haig it: "We're in charge here on campus!"
Hearts and minds are not changed by edicts. Or institutional affirmations. The bottom-line is that each person will have to make their own choice. "As for me and my house, we will believe the Lord." Time and process are in His hands. "The heavens declare the glory of God." It is the parents that have my sympathy. Many must be being torn apart inside.
Both sides are playing with the minds and hearts of vulernable young people. Tom
I wonder if debating who "won" and "lost" is the most helpful way of responding to the recent actions of the LSU Board.
This may well lead to a similar result to the Faith and Science Conferences
(a) The scientists will get to show the administrators that the science behind millions of years of life on Earth is solid, and there is no science behind YEC - the administrators should have gotten this message by now, but their continue to hope that some YEC breakthrough will get them out of their predicament.
(b) The administrators will realise that they are between the proverbial rock and a hard place, and make affirmations that the traditional position is right, because that's what got them their jobs and its what the current constituency will tolerate
(c) The knowledgeable onlookers will realize that the affirmation means 'we are wrong, but don't know how to admit it without scaring off the conservatives'
(d) The conservative onlookers will be satisfied
Meanwhile the university staff will look at "even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world" and keep doing what they are doing.
Philosophical positions like this one are akin castles - many were never captured, but nobody lives in them any more. It is really hard to find a teenager who thinks YEC is right, and very few 20-50 yo people care about this issue at all.
/Bevin
Come to Louisville, KY near the end of this year, and you'll find thousands of 20-30 year olds who care deeply and passionately about the biblical account of origins, i.e., young life creation.
http://gycweb.org/Conference.html
The basic question for the Christian is:
Why would God be willing to die for something that began by chance and through trial and error over time developed in to a relatively rational being?
The paradigm for the Christian is:
The Creation
The Fall
The Advent
The Cross
The Resurrection
The Installation
The Return.
knock out Creation and the entire struture falls.
The only thing man knows for sure, deep down in his own heart is that he indeed needs to be saved from himself which for millenia he has been unable to do by himself. Tom
who lost?
honest searchers of truth and their kids education.....
that's who...
who may now be asked to give up fellowship if not be dismembered completely from sharing the potato salad at church pot lucks.
at least prior to this , you had a choice....teach your kids to believe what the highered-arky mandated, based on their faith in late 1800's dogma, itself based on 3000 yr old superstitiously uneducated nomad stories, and be a participating member of the club and its wonderful fellowship,
or
learn and teach your kids what modern science leads to by the examination of (often new)evidence.
for example: from patriarchs and continuing profits, pg 108:
...<"The entire surface of the earth was changed at the Flood. A third dreadful curse rested upon it in consequence of sin. As the water began to subside, the hills and mountains were surrounded
Page 108
by a vast, turbid sea, Everywhere were strewn the dead bodies of men and beasts. The Lord would not permit these to remain to decompose and pollute the air, therefore He made of the earth a vast burial ground. A violent wind which was caused to blow for the purpose of drying up the waters, moved them with great force, in some instances even carrying away the tops of the mountains and heaping up trees, rocks, and earth above the bodies of the dead....
The earth presented an appearance of confusion and desolation impossible to describe. The mountains, once so beautiful in their perfect symmetry, had become broken and irregular. Stones, ledges, and ragged rocks were now scattered upon the surface of the earth. In many places hills and mountains had disappeared, leaving no trace where they once stood; and plains had given place to mountain ranges.">...
one could trust and believe the above, despite all evidence to the contrary,
or
one could keep their membership current by quietly understanding that those who accept the above hallucination literally, do not understand things....without of course actually telling the literalists that they don't understand schist, or how the wild, roaring turbid sea and violent mountain moving wind could have so gently balanced a glacier-rounded granite boulder from NH on top of a glacier smoothed bedrock schist 100's of miles away and only 10 miles from the Right-eous NE Coast of Atlantic Union College.
A modern, scientific understanding of how schist was formed proves that the rocks themselves were not instantly created...they evolved thru natural and explainable processes over vast periods of time. And the "errant boulder" pictured below so delicately balanced on bedrock schist proves that Noah's violent, turbid flood followed by mountain moving windstorms probably did not reach Central Mass.
http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=16&post=5817#POST5817
do you want your kids to learn how volcanoes and earthquakes happen the following imaginative way?
...<"At this time immense forests were buried. These have since been changed to coal, forming the extensive coal beds that now exist, and also yielding large quantities of oil. The coal and oil frequently ignite and burn beneath the surface of the earth. Thus rocks are heated, limestone is burned, and iron ore melted. The action of the water upon the lime adds fury to the intense heat, and causes earthquakes, volcanoes, and fiery issues. As the fire and water come in contact with ledges of rock and ore, there are heavy explosions underground, which sound like muffled thunder. The air is hot and suffocating. Volcanic eruptions follow; and these often failing to give sufficient vent to
Page 109
the heated elements, the earth itself is convulsed, the ground heaves and swells like the waves of the sea, great fissures appear, and sometimes cities, villages, and burning mountains are swallowed up.">...
or do you prefer that your kids teachers understand science and explain to you and your kids how things work ....
the real way?
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/atg.html
one can understand why a club of scientifically ignorant people (emphasizing the present participle of the verb) would prefer to exclude members who graduate from antediluvian campfire stories to modern scientific understanding.....
otoh, many are beginning to appreciate why so many SDAs, after becoming educated, and no longer ignorant of the evidence supporting modern scientific conclusions are deciding not to belong to or share their dues with a club which wants to exclude them anyway.
there will be no mass schism into two parts....there will be only the remnant few content in their dogma, who attempt to exclude those who are still seeking all the truth.
thus, the "educate truth" squad has chosen the wrong mantra... they want to suppress truth, or at least the search for it. not provide education which encourages the search for the whole truth in all its manifestations.
the scientifically uneducated may just be the remnant few,
144,000 virgins guys, standing in an EGW perfect square,
379.4733 guys per side.
guess there are only a few remaining questions:
1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZBPu7jJbJU
and
2:
who will remain behind this winter to run the generators for lights, the water and sewer plants, and who will dare "light the fire" in the furnace in the church after that Numbers tale about God killing a guy for making a fire on sabbath...in a relatively "warm" desert environment....especially since Al Bore's global warming vision seems to be really forecasting a very cold winter ahead.
Tom Wrote:
--Why would God be willing to die for something that began by chance and through trial and error over time developed in to a relatively rational being?
--
That is the classic misunderstanding. Evolution could be a method of creation in which case it could even be God directed in parts. This idea that evolution means no God is incorrect. Evolution is a theory for understanding of organisms it is not the philosophy of life or of God. Those are different areas of human understanding.
But people have been told that numerous times and they still pretend that nontheistic evolution is the only method of understanding evolution. Of course science does not operate with the belief in the supernatural and that is good. It is the philosophy part that determines what or if there is a theistic component or not.
Ron
Adventist Media and Conversation Blog
RC wrote:
"people have been told that numerous times and they still pretend that nontheistic evolution is the only method of understanding evolution. Of course science does not operate with the belief in the supernatural and that is good. It is the philosophy part that determines what or if there is a theistic component or not."
It is because there is a refusal to completely separate science and religion (belief). Stephen Jay Gould's proposal of separate magesteria is still not being applied. Conflating belief and science has no basis in fact, only the attempt to apply faith to facts: an impossibility. If there were evidence, faith would be unnecessary.
"It is the work of true education to…train the youth to be thinkers and not mere reflectors of other men’s thought.”
When science classes are directed to have a predetermined conclusion, reflecting the thoughts of certain men relying on ancient understanding of the natural world, seems a bit odd to use that quote.
so most spectrum forum members are upset that lsu now has to teach that in 6 literal days the world was created, and that according to what science says, it just isn't true....?
so what, do we just write out parts of the Bible that we don't like or can't fit in with the information that we've found so far in this life?
what do christian scientists believe, i'd like to know? are you all instead saying that, sure everything was created in 6 days (morning and evening), but not the 24 hour literal days that WE know as our reality today???
i feel like i've been under a rock....christians who don't believe in 6 day creation...wow.
john alfke said: "who may now be asked to give up fellowship if not be dismembered completely from sharing the potato salad at church pot lucks."
You're assuming this is a moral issue. The professors are sincere in their beliefs and not being malicious. They're immoral for believing the theory of evolution is true; however, they're belief's as are being presented in the classroom contradict their employer, the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Being an employee of the church and a member of the church are too different things. One is paid to represent and support the church. In regard to their current practices their just getting paid, while not representing the church's position.
Shane Hilde
What about personal integrity and the conviction of truth? How should that be compromised? By the teachers or by the school? If Creationism is taught, why the need for PhDs? Any theologian is fully qualified to teach "Bible Creationism." Just discharge all the science professors and hire theologians, then it will qualify for a "real" Bible college.
However, both students and parents should be given notice that graduating from such a "scientific creationism" school may not give admission to graduate study in the sciences.
Elaine:
Speaking of giving notices, I think La Sierra should notify each incoming student who will be taking biology that their professors believe and promote the long age of the earth and common ancestry.
Then people can decide for themselves if they want an ignorant scientific creationist education or an intelligent well informed evolutionist education.
At the moment the professors say we believe and evolution is what we'll teach.
The La Sierra administration says... we're just going to make our students take more creation classes. Way to be transparent; put more work on the students.
Shane Hilde
kb the VAST majority of scientists and engineers accept evolution (95+ percent) and when you narrow down to earth and life sciences, that number goes to less than one percent who reject it (that doesn't even mean accepts a literal six day creation in its place either.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
When you consider that somewhere around 40% of scientists say they believe in a personal God who answers prayer then you have a pretty good idea of how believing scientists feel about a literal six day creation. They don't believe it by a huge, huge margin.
A literal six day creation is a minority view in Christian denominations, it is a very minority view among Christians who are scientifically trained, and it is even a minority view among everyday Christians (although again, those who are not scientifically trained are less likely to accept evolution instead.)
Shane....
can you enlighten us as to when and how God created schist out of former sedimentary rock which itself had come from the long term weathering and erosion of former magmatic rocks?
http://flexiblelearning.auckland.ac.nz/rocks_minerals/rocks/schist.html
how bout limestone often found with the fossilized remains of early lifeforms? like the summit of the Matterhorn and Mt Everest?
How bout shale containing weird ancient life forms fossilized in an ancient underwater mudslide....now high in the mts of the Canadian Rockies? (google: Burgess Shale)
how bout the huge salt mines 2000 feet UNDER Lake Erie? (google: Cleveland Salt mines)or the Kansas Plains...or under the Alps ("Saltz"burg, Austria???)
hint: halite only comes from the evaporation of saltwater... and mega salt deposits only come from mega salt waters evaporated over mega time periods....putting an obvious ending exclamation mark to the Ussher timeline hypothesis....
thanx to AlGores internet, one can no longer claim lack of access to evidence as an excuse ....tho willful ignorance may still work for some...for a while.
and your quote:
the professors ....<"They're immoral for believing the theory of evolution is true">...
brings up the question:
if God wanted us to believe literally the story ascribed to Moses in Genesis, why did He invent radiometric dating? which tends to disprove the timeline in Genesis?
how is it immoral to believe what God wrote with his own "creation" in the Book of Rocks, while you prefer to believe what some unknown writers pressed into cuneiform tablets based on what they had heard from older tribal stories, and claimed that their God told them?
you see...errant man is involved in the transmission of God's Book of Words, while God directly was in control from start to finish of His "Book of Rocks"....
if God provided both, why is it "immoral" as you claim, to believe one over the other?
if there is anything "immoral" going on, it is the apparent lack of LSU profs open explanation of what they are teaching...not what they believe.
but literalism will lose every time it is put up against scientific inquiry:
which works better to stop mold or leprosy?
science?
or asking your paster to pretend he is a witch doctor, go kill two birds, sprinkle their blood with hyssop on the affected parts, and in 7 days after 7 hail Marys, and firing up a few candles, the problem will be cured,
so you're saying that even though the Bible states that it was a 6 day creation, basically no one is buying it....from God?
so does anyone believe that the Word of God was, in fact, inspired-- or not?
oh i know! it was another "mistake" of God's...(not relating that to you, Beth, and thanks for the statistics).
okay, john i understand the sentiment better, thanks. still don't agree with it. too many people question the Bible. either we take it in context as a whole, and in context to history, or we just pick and choose what we agree with, believe, and follow... which is basically what many spectrum arguers seem to do, anyway.
also, when did God invent radiometric dating? ch. and verse please.
Ron
You miss the point. The cross assumes a perfectly created man that fell! Theistic evolution assumes God jump started the process and stood back and watched it grow, change, mature. A classic Deistic view.
Tom
to KB...who posted (tongue in cheek)
what do christian scientists believe, i'd like to know?
stop feigning wonder....here it is:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
begin quote:
Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.
This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.
Can We Really Believe the Dating Systems?
We have covered a lot of convincing evidence that the Earth was created a very long time ago. The agreement of many different dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, over hundreds of thousands of samples, is very convincing. Yet, some Christians question whether we can believe something so far back in the past. My answer is that it is similar to believing in other things of the past. It only differs in degree. Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived? Because it would take an extremely elaborate scheme to make up his existence, including forgeries, fake photos, and many other things, and besides, there is no good reason to simply have made him up. Well, the situation is very similar for the dating of rocks, only we have rock records rather than historical records. Consider the following:
* There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
* All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
* Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
* Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
* Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
* The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.
Rightly Handling the Word of Truth
As Christians it is of great importance that we understand God's word correctly. Yet from the middle ages up until the 1700s people insisted that the Bible taught that the Earth, not the Sun, was the center of the solar system. It wasn't that people just thought it had to be that way; they actually quoted scriptures: "The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved" (Psalm 104:5), or "the sun stood still" (Joshua 10:13; why should it say the sun stood still if it is the Earth's rotation that causes day and night?), and many other passages. I am afraid the debate over the age of the Earth has many similarities. But I am optimistic. Today there are many Christians who accept the reliability of geologic dating, but do not compromise the spiritual and historical inerrancy of God's word. While a full discussion of Genesis 1 is not given here, references are given below to a few books that deal with that issue.
As scientists, we deal daily with what God has revealed about Himself through the created universe. The psalmist marveled at how God, Creator of the universe, could care about humans: "When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have set in place, what is man that You are mindful of him, the son of man that You care for him?" (Psalm 8:3-4). Near the beginning of the twenty-first century we can marvel all the more, knowing how vast the universe is, how ancient are the rocks and hills, and how carefully our environment has been designed. Truly God is more awesome than we can imagine!
end quote from DrWeins...a Christian scientist.
*************************
to Shane, David, Robert, and others:
why not study some of the evidence from this web site:
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/links.html#DLKNtzqQFa92
such as
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/biblical-chronology-b...
where you will be astonished to read that Woodmorappe, a false name used by a young earth creationist, writing for Answers in Genesis, a very fundy YEC web site, agrees that the Bristlecone Pine chronology is correct back to 8000 yrs, meaning the flood could not have occurred as claimed from a literal reading of Genesis.
its starting to look like honest YECS are now forced by facts to admit that the evidence is stacked against them....
and that they are gonna need a bigger boat or a new set of excuses.
the authors conclusion:
begin admission:
Conclusions
The 8,000-year-long BCP chronology appears to be correctly crossmatched, and there is no evidence that bristlecone pines can put on more than one ring per year. The best approach for collapsing this chronology, one that takes into the account the evidence from C-14 dates, is one that factors the existence of migrating ring-disturbing events. Much more must be learned about this phenomenon before this hypothesis can be developed further
end admission
YEC and the tale of Noah like Roy Scheider is "gonna need a bigger boat".
i feel like i've been under a rock....KB
presumably, under one of the Rock(ies), say, Zebulon Pikes Peak?
Question: does your inexhaustible fount of knowledge or lack there arise from your proximity to the "Garden of the Gods"????
or constant badgering by well intentioned relatives?
or am I conflating you with me?
>>> "We, along with Seventh-day Adventist parents, expect students to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world"
This statement makes it clear that the professor simply has to say
"The SDA church's official position is that all life on Earth was created by God approximately 6,000-10,000 years ago.
What I am teaching in this class is the domininate scientific theory, the theory of Evolution. We will be covering the experiments that have been done, and will see that the best hypothesis matching these experiments is the theory that life has been on Earth for hundreds of millions of years.
The SDA church does not have an explanation for why the Earth looks this way, but we ask you to accept it by faith"
That should provide ample fodder for the other study
>>> "Additionally, the board requested that a research project be launched to study the spiritual development of Adventist students in higher education throughout the North American Division, with special attention to students in the sciences"
Of course the classical organizational method of burying anything is to form a study committee - 1912 Bible Conference, The Sequel
/Bevin
Fundamentalism - taking every word of the Bible as literally true, and ignoring the context of who wrote it, to whom was it written, under what circumstances was it written, and why was it written - is a problem with several churches in the United States, including the SDA church.
The writers of the Bible were spiritual. They were not scientists. We can't take everything written in the Bible to be "literally" true or applicable to all times and cultures.
When reading the Bible we should try to grasp the principles and not just the mere words. The beautiful parallels between the 1st Adam and the 2nd Adam are amazing: both in gardens, the 1st driven out, the 2nd led in, and so on; shows us all that there is a beautiful spiritual significance that we should focus on and not get hung up in areas that the Bible really does not address. Are these parallels just mere coincidences or was it inspired?
So is the Bible to be taken as a scientific textbook? Galileo said: "The Holy Spirit tells us how to go to heaven; and not how the heavens go."
Oh my! I forgot a word.
I'm making a correction on a previous statement I made early that said the professors are "immoral for believing the theory of evolution is true...."
Hopefully from the context my meaning came out, but I intended to say "they are NOT immoral for believing the theory of evolution is true...."
john alfke, thanks for quoting me on that or else I wouldn't have seen that mistake.
I'm not going to get into interpretation of the data debate with you. The controversy surrounding La Sierra has nothing to do with whether evolution or creation is false, but everything to do with employees misrepresenting the organizations position. If they don't agree with the church, work for someone who supports them.
am laughing. let's just keep in mind that you "penned" 'inexhaustible fount of knowledge.' not i. i have basically one question and one question alone. but because i don't post links, and you don't like my stance, i suppose that means that i automatically have a lack of any type of knowledge?
at any rate, your quote did not answer my question, but thanks for taking the time to do the finger-work.
oh and i was NOT tongue in cheek. i was honestly asking. i'd love to be a student 24/7 but who has the time??? not with 3 young kids, i don't. i am interested in conversation and debate at a level that is beyond what the typical 20-something suburban soccer mom is concerned in, and it's difficult enough for me to find time to come in here and post at all, let alone study extensively sources of knowledge for every debate. hey, i need to talk about things other than "johnny peed in the potty yesterday!" if you know what i mean.
i don't appreciate that you incorrectly assume that i post on here, claiming to know all. if i ask a question, look at it in the context of my post, please, before assuming that it is sarcasm. i do use light sarcasm sometimes, but i do think it is needed here on the spectrum forums. i also speak very bluntly and i hope people have noticed this and do not take my posts as anything personal towards them as human beings, but i don't have the time, patience, or energy to beat around the bush.
i don't appreciate *your* sarcasm to my non-existent of the same, and elaborate plays on words to paint me as if i'm on the edge of reason.
and i'll take Z. pike's peak. he died while fighting, having been promoted to Brigadier General. not a bad way to go. it is *your* perception and yours alone that i think i have 'found something great, except the truth being that i haven't really found anything.' (not quoting you per se, but the basic idea)
am i the only one asking for us to not lose sight of the source of truth (is is no longer sola scriptura? this is dangerous territory. yes, we need to search for truth--and be careful while doing so). certainly questioning and searching for answers is beneficial. look at adventist history--going back to the Bible for the answers to their questions is one of the practices they're known for. it's just that the Bible timeline cannot get any more literal (in my mind) than what it is. so no, i won't simply jump on the forum and go along with crowd. i prefer to watch this battle go on a bit longer before i'd even consider putting my money fully on "thousands and thousands of years," while sticking with the Bible's plain and simple timeline.
Really, Shane, lying to students about science isn't important in this issue?
I continue to hold you and those like you for the constant barrage of lies I was told in school. It didn't really take, as I was far too much the scientist to believe evidence-free nonsense for long, but all you who desire to teach what cannot pass any scientific or judicial test for accuracy as if it were science are responsible for egregious mind-bending dishonesty to vulnerable and captive young audiences.
That's what this is really about. If religion is about teaching dishonesty, it's appalling and disgusting.
Glen Davidson
that was actually kind of beautiful, mike m.
Shane's point about being employed by the church to represent the church's stated positions rings sadly true for me. For ten years I was employed by the church in a creative/media capacity and, though I could have probably continued many, many years, the energy required to dampen the dissonance between what I believed and what I was expected to represent took an enormous toll. So, I left and have put together a very successful secular career. But I still watch the shows I formally worked on, see the areas where I could have continued to make a difference, and feel something akin to remorse. I moved on and went mainstream. But my heart is still with the institution I left. I could have continued to make a difference if I stayed, but I couldn't be honest with myself had I done so.
My point is that yes, it might be appropriate for some LSU professors to head down the road to UCR if they're unwilling to toe the party line. But both they, and LSU, will have lost something if that happens.
kb
I remember those days well though I only have two and they are now 8 and 11. I home school and so the questions come fast and thick - from them and me :) I have no idea what curious Moms did before the internet.
Good for you for asking questions and looking for answers and good luck with your search.
So once again, the problem comes down to our view of Biblical inspiration/authority...Does culture and context have a place in evaluating and applying scripture? What about the NT admonitions regarding women speaking in public worship and how to treat slaves? We don't take these verses without evaluating their context? Were the verses in Genesis meant to be a scientific treatise? No, we must look at context once again. The Sabbath doesn't rise or fall only on a literal 7 day creation and young earth chronology.
Hysteria is always fear driven. The fear is that all will be lost if we let any light get through the cracks in the foundational walls of our dogma. The enormous danger here is the loss of trust once the graduates of Bible based biology programs break through the ramparts guarding their education and emerge into the real world. How do you respect and believe anything else the church has to say at that point?
Perhaps we don't give the students enough credit - to be able to see through the politics of the situation as they learn to spit out the acceptable answers to deal with reality later. Isn't that how fundamentalist education often works...
Glen:
"If religion is about teaching dishonesty, it's appalling and disgusting."
Again, any organization has the right to teach what they want, and the right to hold their employees responsible for upholding their position while they're on the job. If people truly think that what the organization is teaching is dishonest, appalling, and disgusting, then they have the right to find employment somewhere else, or if they don't work for the organization support another etc.
I don't understand why professors would want to work for such an organization as you've described. Why not join a secular university where the truth is being taught without any constraints whatsoever, and where there is absolute academic freedom?
Why are these professors working for the lunatic fringe? I don't know.
Shane Hilde
As a mother who has paid for SDA education all the way for three children (7th grade through junior in college) I welcome professors who are diverse. I think the problem comes to a point since our denomination adopted 27 beliefs (a creed? plus one now) in 1980. So now, we have a tool to measure a professor's dogma/curriculum. This is sticky with science. Many people joined this church before our statement/creed was adopted. I think some accountability about beliefs is in order. Maybe 6-8 basics....Then let's allow some latitude in an institution of higher EDUCATION. I applaud the La Sierra Statement. It gives me a sense of spirituality. Would be happy for my children to attend if they so choose.
Carmen:
As a parent you obviously have the right to send your kids any where you want to get any type of education you wan them to have. Now, if La Sierra is the place for your kids, great send them.
It's misleading for the school though to not be upfront about what is being taught in the biology department.
If the theory of evolution is true, like so many around here are trumpeting, then why isn't LSU endorsing it's professors whole heatedly? They're trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Maybe they could be the first SDA school to endorse creationism and evolution. I'd ask them to be honest about it though, so parents and students could make an educated decision.
Shane Hilde
Per Shane: "I don't understand why professors would want to work for such an organization as you've described. Why not join a secular university where the truth is being taught without any constraints whatsoever, and where there is absolute academic freedom?
Why are these professors working for the lunatic fringe? I don't know."
I can only speak from my experience. And yes, for me, there was a reason.
My first appointment in higher education was immediately after retiring from a military career in a medical ancillary profession. I was hired by a state university on my academic credentials and professional experience in the military. After 8 years, and a divorce, I left that tenured position, that area, to accept a similar position in one of the SDA colleges. At the time, it certainly seemed like it was God's will, and there seemed to be miraculous events taking place to facilitate that appointment. I taught my discipline there for 5 years, until that program was closed. In attempting to find academic employment in the state university system, I found significant resistance. One hiring dean even mocked my experience at a "Bible College." Coming from a small, religious-oriented college, was not seen as any sort of marketable credential. In reality, my academic career came to a screeching halt when I left there.
Perhaps there are some opportunities, and tolerance and acceptance, for biologists, chemists, physicists from small "Bible Colleges" to find employment in some state university settings, certainly far more than my limited discipline. But I would suspect that opportunities in the secular academic world for experienced SDA science teachers are extremely limited . . . probably limited to community college programs as an adjunct or other small, liberal arts schools, that are accepting of legitimate science. Finding tenure track positions in research oriented state universities would be a frightening and horrific challenge. And the probability of being hired at the associate or full professor level would be very low.
Unless these SDA professors have significant grants to take with them . . . their marketability will indeed be marginal.
Kenneth James
Thank you Kenneth for your insights. Perhaps it is the same for some of these professors.
From the comments I've been reading I must make a few pertinent inquiries, and I hope someone can offer some reasonable answers:
1. Are we now prepared to say without equivocation that the assertions of science must be equated with absolute truth?
2. When all is said and done, are scientific hypotheses and understandings to be the benchmark by which all truth can be properly measured?
3. If it is being advocated that the church and its institutions must come into line and accept the standard scientific understanding of origins through some kind of spontaneous generation and natural selection, so that there is no consequential role for an originator (Deism and Theistic Evolution exempted), how can the church then justify a doctrine of God apart from the human need to indulge in fantasies? And what would such a doctrine look like? Why worship anything but nature itself, or anyone but ourselves for the wonders of self-creation?
4. Is there validity to the notion that faith may go beyond scientific facts, but never against the best evidence that appeal to reason?
My view is that science is free to explore, discover, verify, and proclaim whatever comes under its purview; but it is quite a finite enterprise, hardly the source of absolute truth. Moreover, being itself an ongoing human activity, it is never complete; and it sometimes changes its "facts" in the light of new discoveries. Does one need to abandon proper Biblical interpretation merely to accommodate concepts that may prove to require a great deal more adjusting?
I submit, no. So that the win-or-loose mentality that characterizes much of the current conversation betrays a pervasive and endemic impatience, an unwillingness to be open on issues that are of existential proportion but that cannot here and now be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems to me that it is possible to stand firm - and still be open to future possibilities.
"1. Are we now prepared to say without equivocation that the assertions of science must be equated with absolute truth?"
Posted by: Hedrick Edwards (not verified) | 15 November 2009 at 7:26
Hedrick, should I read your question as implying that you consider a literal reading of Genesis 1 & 2 as being absolute truth?
I'm no scientist, but there are a number of reasons quite apart from science why Genesis 1 & 2 cannot be a literal account of how God created the earth:
1. The two accounts of creation (ie., Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2) cannot be adequately harmonised;
2. The "expanse" or sky of Genesis 1 is said to have been created by separating the waters above from those beneath, to create the expanse. Later in the narrative, the sun, moon and stars were created within the bounds of this expanse. This world view is completely inconsistent with what we now know about the earth, the solar system and the universe. If you're going to say this account is a literal history, you might as well believe in a flat earth;
3. In the Genesis 2 story, God has the animals parade past Adam so he can name them. Assuming summer daylight hours in a temperate latitude, Adam would have had at most, approx 15 to 16 hours to complete this task. Do you have any idea just how many kinds of animals there are in the world? I can assure you one day just wouldn't be enough to name even a fraction of them.
So on purely logical grounds, the story is clearly not literal. And there is a lot of good science that backs this up.
You said about science "Moreover, being itself an ongoing human activity, it is never complete; and it sometimes changes its "facts" in the light of new discoveries." You're absolutely right - but shouldn't we apply the same principles to our interpretation of the Bible? You also said "Does one need to abandon proper Biblical interpretation..." and I'd take it from this that you consider proper Biblical interpretation to be literal interpretation? As I've already pointed out, there are compelling reasons not to treat Genesis 1 & 2 as being literal accounts.
Seems to me, the real problem with fundamentalist Christians is that they're not prepared to apply the same principles to their interpretation of scripture, as what they expect scientists to apply to the physical evidence. Whatever our field, whether scripture or science, we need to accept that sometimes the obvious answer isn't the correct one. Sometimes we get it wrong and have to rethink things. Sometimes we discover our established way of interpreting evidence needs to change to incorporate new understandings.
I absolutely believe that God created the earth, life on it, and mankind, as specific and deliberate acts. But I don't believe that the Genesis stories are literal accounts of how he did it.
Robert I agree with your analysis. The part that is absolutely true is " In the beginning God!" Tom
And the logic continues -
1. Days (evenings and mornings) are being counted before the sun, moon and stars are made; and so is light. These days cannot be literal days (since there is no sun by which to calculate them (for those who need an explanation).
2. What language was Adam using to name the animals - not Hebrew since that nation did not exist yet.
3. God created food and a night for rest. These would have been of no use to Adam if he was created immortal, only to loose it when he sinned.
4. The DAY that Adam ate the fruit he did not die, as God had told him he would.
"Spontaneous generation" and "natural selection" are scientific terms invented by us, and have limitations we have placed upon them. Doesn't a literal reading of Genesis also include "spontaneous generation", even more spontaneous than the scientific explanation?
Hedrick Edwards asked why we shouldn't then just worship nature; and what would religion (without a literal reading) look like.
Better questions to ask might be - Why is there a universe to begin with; and where do the laws science operates under come from?
1.Why did life burst all over the planet only five million years ago?
2. (A) Why did order come from disorder since randomness always produces disorder (second law of thermodynamics); and the move from chaos to order can happen only if a system has DIRECTION? (B) Why does the Bible describe creation from EVENING to MORNING and not the other way around; and, without a sun to tell time?
*The Hebrew word for evening is EREV whose root is disorder, mixture, chaos; while the Hebrew word for morning is BOKER, whose root is orderly, and able to be discerned. Thus Genesis describes a flow from DISORDER to ORDER in the creation process.
3. Life seems to have been pre-programmed into the chemistry that gave it birth. By what or whom?
4. SCIENCE tells us that solid matter is 99.9999999999999 percent vacuous space; and only force fields make them feel solid; and matter is merely condensed energy. Material reality seems to exist in the mind; and reality is what my brain tells me it is - by what mechanism?
5. Gerald Schroeder states in his book THE HIDDEN FACE OF GOD: "Monotheism does not limit its claim to there being only one God. Biblical monotheism teaches that everything is an expression of this Unity. "there is nothing else" (Deut.4:39, as read in juxtaposition to Deut.4:35). We are intimately a part of the whole. Therefore studying how the whole works must add to the depth of life's experience, much as knowing the politics of the times of Shakespeare adds to our understanding of HAMLET. One might conceive of a science without religion, but it is an oxymoron to conceive of religion without science. Revelation and nature are the two versions of that one reality, each version seen from its own unique perspective."
Quantum physics has changed the reality science explores, making it possible to imagine God scientifically. Quantum physics asks questions Newton never thought of, making religion and science part of one whole arena for us to explore from many different angles.
Fundamentalist religion and the literal reading of the Bible has anthropomorphized God, making Him look more like us than we Him. Genesis gives a general overview of purpose of creation in words and concepts understood by the era in which it was penned. God did not dictate the Bible to anyone. All Bible authors wrote from their own time and culture and "SCIENTIFIC" knowledge of their times. Had God insisted on a scientific explanation of how HE DID IT, we wouldn't understand any of it; and certainly not the writers that penned the words.
If Genesis were to be written today it would appear in terms that make sense to us. But, to carry it further, if God were to reveal it as He knows it to be, there wouldn't even be any human language with which to describe it. As Paul says, "We see, as in a mirror, darkly." - But it doesn't hurt to try - unless we're scared to venture out of our preconceived ideas.
KB,
I don't know if I can add to what others have said. But I feel my perspective seems a little different to others.
If a scientist was able to make some observations on day 8, what would be the correct scientific conclusions of Adam's age? What would be correct according to scientific knowledge, and what would be correct according to the literal interpretation? Physically, perhaps Adam would appear to be two or three decades old! And, this matches when we read it literally, yes he should look a few decades old. So, does it really matter if Adam would not scientifically appear only two days old? Same questions go for the rest of creation. The Genesis account, right from the very beginning, departs from what science is able to tell us. Then, the Bible also indicates that creation changed because of sin - we have no clue at to what extent that change was. Science is left to come up with theories based simply on what we can observe now.
To Robert Soter:
Not at all, you should not read into my questions anything that's not there; take them at face value.
Some of the comments you made on my questions are worthy of careful discussion at another time. However, those comments are tangential to the particular focus of my inquiry, and are therefore unsatisfying, if not entirely unresponsive. It seems that you jumped rather casually to the assumption that I belong to a particular camp ("fundamentalist Christians", "literal interpretation of Genesis", etc) and that therefore the best way to deal with my concerns is to rehash vintage criticisms of the views held by that camp.
It seems to me that meaningful dialogue is impeded when we assume that we must necessarily belong to opposing camps, talk pass each other in this fashion, and "win" debates by sending pejorative messages. The radical polarization that has taken place is clearly a major part of the problem, not its solution.
I'm a believer, an unabashed person of faith, but also an inquirer. I'm still looking for non-dismissive and reasonable answers to the broad questions I've raised in the past and now. Someone may then be in a position to make useful comments on the criticisms you offered.
Sirje,
You said: These days cannot be literal days (since there is no sun by which to calculate them (for those who need an explanation).
Please explain why the time period it takes for the earth to spin one revolution around it's own axis requires a sun, moon or stars? Does God really need them in order to keep time, or are you anthropomorphizing God in order to make that argument?
Please explain your hypothesis that there is no other source of light other than the sun, or that time could not be calculated?
There should be no doubt that literal 24 hour days were intended by the author of the Genesis account. Laurence Turner at Newbold College is an opponent to challenge your OT interpretation with.
You also asked "What language was Adam using to name the animals"
What? What has that got to do with anything? You have got to be joking! What is the significance of this question? Perhaps the same language that he spoke with God! Is that not a fair answer?
food and a night for rest Why can't an incorruptible body enjoy food and rest? Food is required for energy exchange. God rested! Are you saying that God has a sinful fallen nature? Are you anthropomorphizing God in order to make these arguments?
Surely, there are better arguments for you to make than these against the literal understanding? Then, you take a U turn...
SCIENCE tells us that solid matter is 99.9999999999999 percent vacuous space; and only force fields make them feel solid.
Yes, solidity is just a construct that we make to do with our perception limits. We do not really understand much beyond that. We know so very little about physical reality, yet some are happy to extrapolate millions of years of time!? We have only recorded history of a few thousands of years - how can we extrapolate so far with such a small sample? Likewise, distance into the cosmos, we extrapolate soooo far out, assuming some very unprovable and easily challenged foundations about space/time continuity and smoothness. But, it also appears time might be discrete and not smooth! So, what do we really know about what holds moments of reality together? We have no clue.
We are intimately a part of the whole. We are fallen and in need of salvation. We don't want sin and death. Either we are wrong for not wanting it, or sin and death are actually wrong. Either way, something is wrong! Only a few humans disagree with this.
Fundamentalist religion and the literal reading of the Bible has anthropomorphized God, making Him look more like us than we Him. Maybe true for some - I agree to some extent. But, the Genesis account differs markedly from other ancient creation stories, because in it God created everything. God was not a creature made inside creation. God the Creator comes first, He creates the cosmos, and things like the sun, moon and stars are merely for the purpose of telling time and season only, for light and navigation. The sun, moon and stars do not dictate our destiny! This is significant compared other ancient beliefs, like sun worship, astrology etc, and even compared with modern beliefs today in astrology etc.
God was the Creator of the cosmos, not very anthropomorphic really. I mean if you actually read it literally, then God can not be restricted to an anthropomorphic view! But, God also personal, who wanted to spend Holy time resting with us. This rest is about Holiness, it part of our created purpose, it involves communing. The 7th day is part of creation. This rest is perfect harmony and this rest is perfectly sinless - and is not because of sin as you suggested. I mean, if you read it literally, you can not assert that type of rest was because of sin!?
You know what I find funny. Pretty much all of the atheistic arguments against God are the ones that anthropomorphize God.
Your arguments against a literal reading of creation are equally flawed. Your arguments anthropomorphize God by claiming what God couldn't do.
Tom wrote:
--
You miss the point. The cross assumes a perfectly created man that fell! Theistic evolution assumes God jump started the process and stood back and watched it grow, change, mature. A classic Deistic view.
--
No you assume that the cross assumes a perfectly created man that fell the New Testament says that God so loved the world. Should that not be reason enough?
I actually covered this on my blog which you can access by clicking my name below. In the article "does Christianity fall without the fall" Of course it does not. also not that long ago I did two articles on "is the Bible the Word of God" again showing that at best it contains some words of God and directs us to the Word (Jesus)but it is not the Word of God.
Those two presumptions make up the main struggle the fundamentalists have with Progressive understanding of Christianity and of the application of science. Like most everything the philosophy one builds is only as good as it founding ideas. The traditionalist however never investigate their founding ideas. Because tradition is their founding idea. But tradition really isn't good enough for rational beings.
Ron
Adventist Media and Conversation Blog
One of the basic issues is this, If you work for Ford to market their products but actually believe in GMC and market their products instead, while drawing a paycheck from Ford, isn't this not only intellectually dishonest but also immoral?
Yet some of you think this is how it ought to be. Hey, you work for the church, but it is OK to undermine your imployers position and take his money. After all, you don't believe in his product.
Such reasoning is intellectually impaired as far as I can see.
Bill Sorensen
It seems that the focus is on Gen 1,2 not the sum of Scripture:
Just for starters let us limit to New Testament texts:
Math. 13:19
i Cor. 11:8
Eph. 2: 9
Eph. 4:24
Col. 1:16
Col 3: 10
I Ti. 4:3
Rev. 3:11
Rev. 10: 6
Then for Creation.
Math. 10:8
Matt. 13: 19
Rom. 1:20
Rom. 8: 22
2 Peter 3: 25
Rev. 3: 14
Then for Creator
Rom. 1:25
i Peter 4:10
Thus Christianity stands or falls on the Creation! Tom
Chris,
Hedrick asked what a "doctrine of God" might look like if we accepted the scientific understanding of origins. I'm saying you don't have to reject God as Creator when you accept the scientific view of origins. My point is that Genesis does not have to be understood literally in order to give God the credit for creation. The question assumes that the only legitimate way to read Genesis (the Bible) is to read it literally. Any other way is unchristian, leaving God out of the picture.
All Scripture is not created equal. There is prose and poetry which bring symbol and hyperbole, and facts as they were known at the time of writing. It's not enough to simply translate Hebrew into English (or whatever) to get the meaning of what's intended. Culture and time give meaning to the texts.
1. I questioned what language Adam used to name the animals, which you thought was ridiculous. Reading the passage literally, one would assume that Adam actually gave names to all the animals; and some have even suggested that there wasn't enough the time of 24 hours to name all the animals. Giving names has great symbolic significance in Hebrew. God changed people's name all through the Bible which was also a creative act as He designated significance to the individuals. Giving Adam the task of "naming" the animals was an invitation for Adam to join God in the creative process and establishes man's dominion over the animals. Where do I get that? - by reading stuff.
2. The first thing God created was the particles/waves of light - quite apart from the sun. However, for the earth to rotate on its axis it needs the sun and the moon to be there to offer the proper balance between the centrifugal force that would fling the earth out into space vs. the gravity of the sun trying to pull it toward itself. So, no the earth could not be rotating or orbiting without the sun being present. That's science. Ask Galileo. Oh, right, he got into trouble saying just that.
To leave the sun and the moon out of time calculations and as the source of light for the earth negates the very purpose for which it's even brought up in Genesis. If there is another source of light that would account for the DAYS in Genesis, the Bible certainly doesn't say that.
3. Time, as you say, is relative ("discreet") - actually another SCIENTIST SAID THAT. You also say categorically but without substantiation that there is no doubt that the days of creation were 24 hours long. That IS a literal reading. But, again, that's problematic if there is no sun.
4. You asked why food couldn't be enjoyed for its own sake - and rest as well. No problem, but you also indicate that these are required for "energy exchange". This assumes that energy would run out without food and rest. My question is, what would that mean in a world where there is no death because there had not been any sin. Literalists have a problem answering that. Either, our need for food and rest were programed into us at creation or they must be the product of sin if they are needed to sustain us. Did God get tired after six literal days of creation? How is that possible? even a literalist must come up with some symbolic significance to God resting on the 7th day.
5. You argued that the creation story differs from other creation stories. I'm not comparing other creation stories. Although there is another interesting subject.
6. The idea that God used clay and a potters wheel to create man actually detracts from my idea of the Creator of the cosmos. For me this is symbolic here as much as it is in other parts of the Bible where God is talked about as the potter, and man as clay. Taken literally, this story gives the creation of Adam an air of magic and unreality. Taken symbolically, I can accept that man is made of the same chemicals that make up the soil of this earth and the stuff stars are made of. This brings unity to the whole creation, all of which pulses and breathes in the (non-literal) hands of God.
7. Quantum physics does say that nothing is what it seems. The Bible tells us that there is no "time" with God. He is the beginning and the end - all at the same time. He does not live on planet X through Orion's belt. God is bigger than that. We have no language with which to talk about God and what He has done. We can only use imagery. The Bible writers wrote within their own understanding of their world, using word pictures that gives them and us the WHY for the universe. The HOW is still a mystery now, as it was then. But, as someone said, God has left a history for us to discover and that history is written in the rocks and the soil of this earth, and possibly other heavenly bodies. He has also given us the laws of nature with which we are able to heal the sick and order our environment.
For some people it helps to understand God's hand in creation by relying on the literal application of Genesis; for others it's a detriment. The job of education is to give the best possible information relevant to the subject being taught. Faith belongs to religion and scientific inquiry belongs separate, only to be harmonized by the individual. Can't we trust God through His Spirit to lead us to the right conclusions without cramming our views on others?
"Thus Christianity stands or falls on the Creation! Tom"
This is true, Tom. And I know part of the discussion is on this issue. But the real issue with LSU is not so much what is true or false in the area of origins, but what is a teacher's obligation in light of what the church believes and teaches.
SDA's by concensus believe in a six literal days of creation followed by the seventh day Sabbath.
If this is not believed or doubted by any teacher, they should resign and find employment elsewhere. Anything else is duplicity.
Bill Sorensen
Bill,
I can live with a prof. having some doubts and wrestlings with six days followed by 7th-Sabbath creation 6,000 yrs.ago at a SDA institution.
What I think is completely inconsistent,however,is a prof. that feels he/she "knows evolution as to origins" is a "fact" and feels the Biblical creation story is "foolishness and a myth" without substance.
regards,
pat
"SDA's by concensus believe in a six literal days of creation followed by the seventh day Sabbath."
Bill, are you suggesting that college educators should allow an SDA consensus to decide on how and what is taught? Is that your idea of college education: teach to the lowest common denominator?
We know that by far the majority of Adventists worldwide are not college graduates, in fact it is more likely than the majority have never even graduated from high school.
Following your recommendation would require a poll of worldwide Adventists on any subject taught in college and that would be the consensus for future education. How long do you think any colleges adhering to that situation would be accredited, and how long before there would be too few students to pay? Impractical?
Would you choose to place your healthcare to a consensus by the general public? Or to advise you on any particular subject? IOW, what is the value of an education if not to improve one's knowledge beyond what it is presently? Should Adventists be educated no higher than any other SDA in the world church? Why not simply allow any good SDA to teach any college subject? Wouldn't that fit your criteria of consensus?
>>> It's misleading for the school though to not be upfront about what is being taught in the biology department.
http://www.lasierra.edu/departments/biology/important_reasons.html
http://www.lasierra.edu/departments/biology/courses.html
Looks up front to me
/Bevin
Hedrick,
Sorry I assumed things your questions didn't state. I didn't actually attempt to answer your four questions because I don't consider myself qualified. But I didn't really understand where you were coming from with one or two of your questions and comments, hence my assumptions.
I'll take a stab at answering your 4 questions from my perspective (with no assumptions read in :-), for what my opinion is worth:
Q1. Are we now prepared to say without equivocation that the assertions of science must be equated with absolute truth?
My response: It depends on the assertions you're referring to, and the amount of evidence in support of those assertions. What we know about the force of gravity pretty much represents an absolute truth, but I don't have the same level of confidence in our theories about origins.
Q2. When all is said and done, are scientific hypotheses and understandings to be the benchmark by which all truth can be properly measured?
My response: A hypothesis is essentially an untested theory. It doesn't necessarily carry much weight. An "understanding" would probably be regarded as a theory which has been tested quite extensively and withstood numerous falsification attempts. Such a theory then becomes part of the standard by which other hypotheses are measured and tested. Having said that, a good theory is only useful for "measuring truth" within its field.
Q3. If it is being advocated that the church and its institutions must come into line and accept the standard scientific understanding of origins through some kind of spontaneous generation and natural selection, so that there is no consequential role for an originator (Deism and Theistic Evolution exempted), how can the church then justify a doctrine of God apart from the human need to indulge in fantasies? And what would such a doctrine look like? Why worship anything but nature itself, or anyone but ourselves for the wonders of self-creation?
My response: I personally don't accept all of these theories as truth because the theories appear to ignore some real difficulties with how life could spontaneously evolve, and how simple life forms changed to complex life forms. Depending on the level to which you accept the present theories, God would either be relegated to a powerful being manipulating an otherwise natural process, or completely uninvolved.
Q4. Is there validity to the notion that faith may go beyond scientific facts, but never against the best evidence that appeal to reason?
My response: I see this as a valid notion.
As stated in my previous post, I personally believe in a creator God, but don't accept the Genesis accounts as being literal. I think the church and its institutions should continue to promote God as creator - this truth can be argued without the literality of Genesis, and inspite of the current scientific theories.
Elaine asks....
"Bill, are you suggesting that college educators should allow an SDA consensus to decide on how and what is taught?"
Christanity is built on revelation, not science. And yes, Christians bind themselves together on the biblical revelation and scorn any attempt by science to deny what is clearly and obviously stated by way of revelation.
If a professor does not adhere to this principle, they should abandon the fellowship and find one that subscribes to some other idea or theory.
Let's see science "prove" Jesus is both God and man.
Let's see science "prove" Jesus is coming again, or, for that matter, that He even existed.
Let's see science "prove" a 6 literal day creation.
Neither a scientist nor a Christian can "prove" any of this nor many other biblical confessions of faith.
Your parallel to health care is a false dilemma. It has nothing to do with the issue of faith and science.
But just as a side note, Elaine, do you know how old Adam was when God created Him? I mean biologically. Was he 30, or 40. Or maybe 18. He certainly was not a baby.
And how old then were the rocks, or trees, or even the animals on their creation day? We are not told. And obviously, we don't need to know.
So, if someone concludes a rock is one million years old, how old was it on creation day?
The obvious point is this, no one knows and no one who believes the bible needs to know or care. I don't base my spiritual faith on what science can prove or deny. Because any and everyone knows in these areas science don't know "come here.....from sic-cum".
It is incredible how some people who claim some affinity for the Christian faith are so easily deluded by every Tom, Dick and Harry who challenges the bible with some show of "higher learning" in some scientific theory.
Let me ask you and everyone else the most important question of all, "How do you know Jesus paid for your sins on the cross?" Of course, Ron doesn't believe it. But for those of us who do, we don't ask science "how can these things be?"
And neither do we ask science how God created the world in 6 literal days and rested on the seventh.
This point is so firmly rooted in the bible that it is part of the moral law. And the moral law itself is by way of revelation, not some natural law conclusion. And those who believe moral law and natural law are one and the same will necessarily give up the Sabbath which has no natural law imperative attached to it. You can "rest" any day you want and receive the same natural law blessing.
Those who abandon the biblical revelation for natural law conclusions always end up with some "spirit ethic" in place of biblical revelation in harmony with Roman Catholic spirituality. "Higher enlightenment" will always be appealed to over and above the bible and every aspect of the bible is manipulated by human speculation as superior to the written word.
Keep the faith (that is, if you have any),
Bill Sorensen
Where I lost faith in Educate Truth is not in its belief to hold a protestant denomination's school to the Bible but in the fact that it has no teeth. For some reason its "leadership" thinks a peaceful conversation is going to bring about change. LOL, that is the joke of the decade!
And not only did Shane take steps to shoot himself in the foot, only political majors and people of experience in these matters would know, but he also shut down comments on his blog when he was beginning to get some real action oriented conversation going by expert supporters no less! I can't imagine a better way to screw things up.
As much as we appreciate your administrative contributions to this effort, none of us believe you alone have the intellectual wherewithal to take it upon yourself to call the shots. To this day your comments are all shut down. Why is that Shane?
LSU leaders must love you to death, Shane, cause you'll do exactly what they ask you to do every time.
What a crock.
Bill,
If there had been any literal "Adam", than any dentist would be able to examine his teeth and gums on the creation day and conclude that such an Adam was very, very young (certianly not 30 or even 18). To me, the fundametalists' disregard for science (no matter how solid) is akin to disregard for God, as it makes God a liar. Instead, I study God through nater and what it tells us about God.
Being both "God and man" is an incomprehensible babble that science is not interested in (and fundamentalists can't even explain). Science has also disproved recent creation beyond any shadow of doubt a long time ago. But the age of the earth and history of life is of utmost significance and is being studied by science. Any university that does not teach it like it is but the way its denomination orders it to does wishful thinking and not science. The sooner LSU and GRI start doing what they promise, the sooner they will discover that there is no viable alternative to scientific consensus - and that means billions of years of evolution.
Science cannot prove the Bible; the Bible cannot prove science. It is futile to even consider it.
One takes the Bible on faith, so it is absolutely unarguable; just as someone says he is married to the most beautiful wife, it is not something to be disputed, but a very personal opinion. Just so the stories in the Bible can not be proved, but are accepted, in varying degrees by Jews and Christians.
Just so, no one can prove Adam's age when he first saw Eve. One would have to ask the Bible writers if they had any idea, or that it was of any importance to them, which I seriously doubt.
There are Christians who look to the Bible to prove all knowledge, something that is never claimed within it pages. It was written by humans as the story of origins. Many cultures had similar stories of a "garden" a flood, and they are so remarkably similar that it stretches credulity to believe that the Bible stories are original. However, "belief" is never something that its believers should try to prove. Faith and belief cannot be proved; if it were possible, it would not be faith. Hebrew 11 should always be remembered for those who claim faith: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of THINGS NOT SEEN" (NASB).
"Only faith can guarantee th blessings that we hope for, or prove the existence of the realities that at present remain unseen" (Jerusalem Bible).
One of the best reasons for keeping YEC out of the science classrooms is because its presence there will expose it for the shallow fraud that it is.
Shane may inadvertently end up doing the SDA church a great favor...
In law and politics, one should never ask questions whose answers are not known. Nor should one push over a delicately balanced system until you know which way it is going to fall.
/Bevin
Sirje,
Sorry for my tone. I do feel 'defensive' about these things. I get a bit annoyed, because there seems to be a severe lack of understanding on both sides. I feel a bit caught in the middle sometimes with my perspective.
You are correct that there are Christians who accommodate all sorts of approaches. In context, you were providing a good answer to some of the previous questions in the thread. I do appreciate your perspective. I held to that same perspective for a very long time, and I do still contemplate it a lot. But, for me personally, holding to that perspective did kind of erode the 'Christianity' from my faith. Because, the same literalistic vs symbolic approach has consequences regarding the recorded accounts of Jesus Christ's resurrection.
Where I was coming from is that I don't know why you made what appeared to me to be straw men arguments against the literal interpretation. For what purpose do you fabricate unnecessary falsifications? Why do you want people to let go of their faith derived from those things?
I think that a literalistic interpretation fits the science, in that you CAN read it literally, and you CAN allow science to say what appears to be an old Earth. I believe that Genesis says that it would appear old. i.e. God created fully developed cosmos and biosphere from day dot. Add to that what Genesis says about sin, how can we scientifically restrict what the effects were due to the entrance of sin into our creation?
Do you really think that science can falsify such supernatural faith based beliefs? If not, then why pose as if it can?
God exists throughout and beyond creation and what we percieve as space/time, I do go along with that too. There is no explanation of why reality holds together from one Planck instant to the next. And, to restrict God to something bound within creation is kind of not what God is described as.
You were correct that I made an assumption about food being for energy transfer, maybe I am completely wrong about that, but that also means you are not necessarily correct about the conclusion that it was necessary for their survival - not when they had God's presence sustaining them on a regular basis. Perhaps rather than simple energy transfer, there is some joy to be had in eating? But again, this is about why do you look for problems that aren't necessarily there? Maybe I am right, and maybe I am wrong, but for what reason are you saying that Genesis is literally wrong?
You said, "Can't we trust God through His Spirit to lead us to the right conclusions without cramming our views on others?"
Amen, so why attack the literalistic view? It may be wrong, but I think you need to be sure that it's wrong before you attack it! Likewise, literalists add fuel to the fire when they proclaim (mistakenly I think) that science is wrong without demonstrating why it is wrong.
Personally, I have been fed enough doubt to be skeptical. How could I avoid it? There is no way to actually know for sure either way at the moment, but I see no good reason to reject the literalistic interpretation. And I don't see that it is at odds with scientific theories. So, while these two perspective don't conflict, I see no good reason not to exercise religious faith in literal creation. After all, the reasons that I have for believing it are still valid!
Joe said.....
"Bill,
If there had been any literal "Adam", than any dentist would be able to examine his teeth and gums on the creation day and conclude that such an Adam was very, very young (certianly not 30 or even 18)."
Joe, like myself, you can only speculate. Neither one of us have a clue.
But because I have faith in the biblical revelation on this area, I don't need one. The bible gives us plently of verifiable evidence to believe such as prophecy. As well as historical evidence and testimony of historical figures. But, there are still plenty of loop holes for unbelief if this is what a person chooses. Ask John Alfke. I think he has found them all.
Bill Sorensen
In the debate between "young-earth creationist"(6000-10,000 yrs) & "old-earth creationist" (13.7 billion yrs - present day calculation), there are some points of agreements. 1.the universe was a miraculous spontaneous creative event a finite time ago. 2.this creation was the work of the transcendent God of the bible. 3. the earth is a unique planet exquisitely prepared for humanity as a demonstration of His love and power. 4. God miraculously brought into existence all life forms (plants, animals, microbes etc). 5 God continues to sustain the universe.6 some of the nature of God can be known though the study and observation of the physical universe -the heavens declare....
At issue, in part, are the following; 1. time-line for the created order. 2 the "how" of creation. 3. the accuracy of the observed data and its interpretation. 4 science and the scientific method are not needed when faith is invoked.(faith may be undermined by science). 5 the bible is not a science text and therefore can't be tested ( Note from Paul - test all things!)
The more rational, logical approach (Christian approach?) would be for each side to present a comprehensive creation model that must be testable by scholars, laymen, theologians... At present there is only one model that meets the standard of academic scrutiny that I'm aware of and that is the Reasons to Believe model. It is clearly outlined in "Creation as Science" by Dr Hugh Ross (available at "www.reasons.org).It would be considered to support the "old-age creationist" position. It does not appear that the "young-earth creationist" are prepared to publish as comprehensive model as Dr Ross's group. Any model must harmonize with the bible internally and with
present day science to be credible. After all the God of the bible is the same God who spoke the universe into existence.If Dr Ross is on the right track the evidence for a 13.7 billion yr old universe will increase with respect to time. If not, he's prepared to adjust the model as new discoveries are made. I have not heard a "young-earth" proponent willing to except what modern day astro-physicists have discovered regarding the age of the universe.
Both sides in the discussion would agree that Darwinian evolution is a failing theory simply because the evidence is diminishing with respect to time. The gaps are getting bigger. There is acknowledgment that a correct belief in the age of the universe is not a condition for salvation anymore than observance of the correct day as the sabbath. How well you love-especially those who don't share your opinion-is of great value in God's eyes. Humility should be the hallmark of the debate.
Centuries ago Gallileo faced a church tribunal forcing him to recant his helio-centric solar system based on his observation and tried discredit him. It was science that proved the church was dead wrong. Ignorance in this debate is not bliss but a serious blow to the credibility of the christian community in its mission to preach the Gospel.I don't think the church has been taken seriously since then.
Science,religion,theology,philosophy are complementary disciplines if you believe in one God. The search for harmony requires an open mind to His Spirit
Dave Okamura Toronto
Bill,
Jag said that not me. I don't enter into discussions of theory and philosophy at this time. I enter into discussions of fact and action at this time. Also, you will never convince an SDA of the theory of evolution. You're just wasting your time.
Fact: Teachings that contradict the basic Bible beliefs is a violation of a teachers employment at an SDA school.
Action: Firing, Transfer or Repentance is required for the individuals and anyone protecting the individuals.
I would like to hear testimony from students who are currently attending these classes. Actual recordings of the professors in-class material and presentations that use any theories of evolution. Such testimony, recordings, documentation, should be posted on Educate Truth for all to see and hear. We want to see actual evidence of LSU speaking out of both sides of their mouth. Unfortunately this should have been obtained prior to the creation of Educate Truth, not after.
There needs to be a clear message to all students prior to them attending LSU to keep a look out, stay undercover, and disclose a bucket load of information to the public if and when obtained. It's a potential that will never go away as long as these teachers stay there and LSU remains an SDA University. Whoever that student is, now or sometime in the future, will be the hero and the key to forcing their hand.
Educate Truth has forced the perpetrating professors back into the closet with their teachings but it will only suppress their strength, not extinguish it.
I wish I was that student to be there unbeknownst and gathering such evidence.
SO, you guys keep pushing that pro-evolution talk. Make the professors feel really strong, safe and comfortable about presenting evolution as the best explanation. ...Of course, there's nothing wrong with it! Go out and spread the word. The SDA fundamental beliefs aren't budging an inch. But you go ahead and think that they will... :)
Dave Okamura,
Matt 4:7 Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
each side to present a comprehensive creation model that must be testable by scholars, laymen, theologians...
Here is a summary of my model.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.... And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. ... And God said... And God said... And God said... And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good...
Next time you hear God speaking a creation into existence, don't forget the video camera, so we can analyse exactly how God's voice works. With all due respect for the scientific method, it has as little chance of falsifying Biblical creation as it does the spaghetti space monster.
Isaiah 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Chris,
Thank you for your response. Open discussion is difficult when we're trying to build walls around dogma. I'm not attacking anybody's simple faith but my own. I can't be content to say, "With God, anything is possible." when confronted with inconsistencies. With that attitude why bother making any sense of the Bible. Wrestling with the Lord has a long tradition. I have confidence that God honors honest discussion.
I realize these are complex issues as we try to balance faith and reason; but honesty and fairness needs to control the attitudes - something dogmatic institutions have a problem maintaining.
Shane Hilde's major premise, which he has stated repeatedly, is that church employees who don't agree with the church's teachings should seek employment elsewhere. And--initially, at least--it certainly seems reasonable that people who receive a paycheck from our denomination should support our church's fundamental teachings. To a lesser degree, it would seem, the same principle should apply to church membership. If a member doesn't subscribe to the teachings of the church, why remain a member? And ultimately the same principle would apply even to a non-member's worshiping with us and participating in Sabbath School discussions: If you don't buy into our teachings completely, then have the decency to stay away and not sow seeds of confusion and discontent. But such an approach may be more fraught with complications than one might initially assume.
The preamble to the Seventh-day Adventist Church's Statement of Fundamental Beliefs implies the possibility of change: "Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word."
In a practical sense, how would such change ever take place? Would the delegates to a General Conference Session be sitting in a meeting and simultaneously all be overcome by the overwhelming conviction that some doctrine needs to be tweaked? I suppose that's possible. But, historically, change has come when an idea has been mooted, has gained ground, has developed momentum and has ultimately become the majority viewpoint. In reality, a statement of beliefs doesn't so much dictate belief as it acknowledges what already exists. And any such change in our denomination's statement of beliefs would function the same manner: The statement would simply be updated to reflect the new reality.
While change within our denomination certainly hasn't been cataclysmic, aspects of the current version of our statement of beliefs are less prescriptive than some of the earlier versions. And quite a few peripheral teachings of our church have changed--at least broadened--significantly. Let me cite just two such examples from the creation debate itself.
First, an increasing number of Adventists, it seems, have become comfortable joining their non-Adventist conservative counterparts in declaring that the creation of life on earth took place 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. But Ellen White knows nothing of this new 10,000-year outer limit. Her statements consistently, at least as I've read them, say that creation took place about 6,000 years ago. But the 10,000-year version is more satisfactory to certain students of history who believe that 6,000 years is just too short a period to fit in everything we know about history. And we're talking history here, not science.
Second, even such a vocal defender of conservatism/traditionalism as Clifford Goldstein says he believes that the earth itself is probably billions of years old. He assumes that there was an extremely long period in which the earth, though here, was "without form and void." Creation of life, however, was recent. Such a belief doesn't come from exegesis. Rather it comes from trying to harmonize certain scientific data and the Genesis account. The text of Genesis might permit such a belief, but such a belief could never be deduced just from reading the Bible. It's a case of science being read back into scripture.
Of course, others, especially those with extensive scientific training, have to stretch the rubber band even further to try to hold scripture and science together as a coherent and cohesive package. At what point do we see these people as fitting into the legitimate process of discovery and growth provided for in the preamble to our Statement of Fundamental Beliefs? Or at what point do we fire them? At what point do we disfellowship them? At what point do we ban them from all church functions? If the first step becomes widespread, the second step is sure to follow. And the third step won't be all that far behind, in at least some cases.
It may be necessary to pursue such a path. It may be our moral/spiritual obligation. Shane Hilde and his supporters may be right. But let's remember Jesus' admonition to carefully count the cost before undertaking any project. Before we go too far, let's be sure we truly want--and God would want--the type of church that such a course of action would create.
Jim
Jim says,
" . . . the same principle should apply to church membership. If a member doesn't subscribe to the teachings of the church, why remain a member?"
Members are not paid by the church; members do not teach the youth of church parents; members are not in an official position to represent the church to other organizations; members are free to form their own church; members are free to form their own private school.
Wasn't it Satan that wanted to change Heaven to his own liking? He was sent to planet earth for the experiment. Member are free to establish their own experiment also. Who knows, maybe it would be good . . . it is worth a try dissatisfied members.
How silly to compare the two to discredit the EducateTruth movement.
Jody ;)
"Members are not paid by the church"
What does this phrase mean? Who is 'the church' which is/is not paying these people?
You are a member of the SDA church if your congregation says you are. There is NO ***requirement*** to believe any of the 'Fundamentals'.
Your congregation is an SDA congregation if its Conference says it is - and it is a vote of all the other congregations in the Conference.
THE FOLLOWING IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE MONEY FLOW. IT MAY BE WRONG.
Your Conference usually, but not always, owns the church property and pays the pastor and the teachers.
Your Conference voluntarily supports a Union, Division, and GC by sending money to them. It also uses them for money-laundering. You can send them restricted 'tithe dollars' and get back unrestricted 'pay the boy that mows the lawn' dollars.
Some of the money sent up the tree gets sent down to LSU. LSU also gets money from other sources (student fees etc.) LSU then hires and pays its faculty from this diverse source of funds.
EducateTruth is trying to cause the people that supply and direct money through the above system to impose a particular set of restrictions on organisations that receive some of this money.
There are other people who also want to impose various other restrictions.
Me, I don't put any money into this system any more, I send my money directly to places where it does some good JUST SO other people can't hijack it by playing politics.
/Bevin
Thank you David for your excellent post, it is always good to remind everyone of the many points of agreement between differing opinions.
As a professional scientist and committed christian, I am one of those people who holds the bible and science in the same hand. This is much less difficult than one might imagine, if one keeps an open mind, and above all, remembers as Chris pointed out that God's ways are not our ways. When it comes to faith and reason, we must not put them in opposition to each other. God created us in His image, with minds to think and wills to act, and hearts to love. He has revealed Himself in two ways: firstly He has spoken through the prophets, and now in these last days through His Son, we have a record of these words in the scriptures; secondly he speaks through his creation, we have the open book of Nature to read by experimentation.
As David says, "Science, religion, theology, philosophy are complementary disciplines if you believe in one God. The search for harmony requires an open mind to His Spirit."
When scientists do their work, to the best of their ability, and in the truest scientific mindset, they are trying to understand the world as God created it. When conducted in this manner, their findings are one aspect of the truth revealed by God. This truth can not be inconsistent with the truth of God's revelation in scripture, for God is not divided, nor untruthful. This is why the case of Galileo was so crucial. It required the church to rethink its interpretation of certain verses of scripture (as pointed out above).
The question is, where is the balance and what is the plumb line - which interpretations(if any) are open to reinterpretation in the light of scientific discovery and how does the church decide? Does admitting that Genesis can not be taken literally start us on the slippery slope leading to the conclusion that the Resurrection was not an historical event? I would say emphatically, no! Most scholars hold that the bible is a collection of divinely inspired books, the product of different human authors, different times, cultures and most important for this discussion, different genres. This is seen even in the teaching of Jesus, when he uses parables. The meaning of the parable is no less true, even though the parable itself may not be recanting an historical occurrence. The same is true of other passages in the bible, and to admit such takes nothing away form the historical crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord without which, as St Paul says, our Faith would be worth nothing!
Perhaps the most important point in all of this though, is that we are all called to bear with each other, particularly those of weaker faith. If anything we say or do, causes another to fall, we must not say or do it, even though for us it might be permissible. Perhaps this is the real issue here, not what is the truth, but how we look after each other and ensure that we are acting for the benefit of the whole church and especially looking out for those new to the faith.
Just some thoughts,
Clement
Clement - do you dare answer the following four questions
(1) Which branch of science do you practise in?
(2) Are you paid by any part of the SDA denomination?
(3) Do you think that there has been life on Earth for more than 100,000 years?
(4) What is your real name
You talk about 'causing weaker members to fail'. Telling lies for God might keep some members around, but it also causes others to leave Christianity, and others to never become Christians.
Bevin Brett (ex-SDA)
Brookline NH USA
In all the many comments nothing has been said about the fundamental issue between theistic evolutionists and young earth creationists and that is the issue of DEATH. Dr. Ross tries to deal with it but makes a complete hash of it because Evolution teaches death is natural and necessary. The bible teaches that death is an enemy and unnatural. The issue of death is the basis of sin and redemption and if you discount death as an issue you have destroyed the meaning of the bible. For the whole bible is about how to be redeemed from death and that death will one day be destroyed. The same science that says death is natural will proclaim that death will exist to the end of time.
So the big question: How do we reconcile this issue of death? That is the fundamental issue in this whole discussion about the validity of the bible yet no one seems to want to bring this up.
Has anyone projected what this earth would be like if there were no death, and humans procreated to the fullest extent possible? Even where there was death, according to the Bible and people lived hundreds of years, many with procreative abilities also far into advanced years, when would this earth have no standing room?
Death should not be seen as a curse, but essential to the appreciation of life. With no death ever in the future life would lose much of its purpose. Knowing that we will not live forever gives far more importance for the time we have on this earth, and to make the most of it as there will be no reason to postpone anything for the future, when the future is endless.
Can anyone posit how children would grow and become adults, and then would they stay forever, frozen in a particular time warp, to always be young? It seems a fantasy that no one has developed fully as it would actually be.
Sirje,
Fair enough, but when you see 'inconsistencies' in a wall of dogma, and I see a way to resolve them, should I remain quiet in this open and honest discussion? If those inconsistencies stand up, then I really do like to know about them. I don't want to believe in mistakes! I certainly don't hold to all dogma, and have been corrected many times before.
An antonym of dogma is heresy. Attacks against good dogma are heresies, while false dogma is also heresy when we believe that truth matters! So, I am happy to reject false dogma, and I do put thought into your questions. I don't believe in dogma for dogma's sake!
Elaine,
Here is a wise quote that I agree with: Science cannot prove the Bible; the Bible cannot prove science. It is futile to even consider it.
And thanks for a perfect example of what I mean about making unnecessary assumptions in order to falsify a religious belief. You suggest that "Death should not be seen as a curse, but essential to the appreciation of life." Wow, what a horrible statement! I expect you don't honestly believe that!? The assumptions of the death cycle do not apply to an incorruptible nature.
Easy calculation that you ask for. Let's take 6 billion people. Now, for standing room at a concert they plan to fit about 2-6 people per square meter. Let's make it easy and say 3 people per square meter. OK, so we need only 2 billion square meters. Or 2,000 km² (this 772 square miles for the non-metric world.) Not very much room really! Currently, this planet offers about 148,940,000 km² land.
2,000 / 148,940,000. We have hardly started!
But granted, that is standing room, side by side. But, in a city, you can have multiple levels. How many millions of years to populate this first planet, when we learn to do it efficiently. Having faith that in a sinless nature we could be perfectly efficient with our usage. And then, this is just the first planet. We have countless other planets that are still vacant. And, we can not see the edge of the universe, as for all we know it might go on indefinitely, what assumptions can we make simply because our visibility is only about 15 billion light years? Again, assumptions about the smoothness of time and space, I am happy to be shown wrong here! And, when God is involved, all it takes is another word from Him, and more planets are available instantly.
1 Corinthians 2:9 "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."
Chris,
I don't recall anyone asking you to remain quiet.
Dogma is a tool used to stop discussion. Much of what Christianty now holds as truth was, at one time, heresy. How can we ever put a cap on knowledge? Each of us has a perspective and every once in a while we run into individuals with a unique perspective and our world view changes. Most people are afraid of change, and thus dogma is born.
To Chris Plewright
It is not the Lord who is being put to the test-although I'm sure he can handle it-but I'm sure Paul was referring to the various doctrines that were circulating in his day. Testing all things is does not undermine faith but rather strengthens it. Blindly accepting an article of "faith" is no way to grow spiritually, in my opinion. Examination of all your beliefs requires some kind of testing, don't you think? In our witness on His behalf I think it is helpful -perhaps not necessary- to convey truth including what is known about the physical universe -the Heavens declare- The physical universe can be observed by all humanity and knowing how it works is of interest to people of all faiths. I would encourage you to read "Creation as Science" (reasons.org) by Dr Ross.
Your model fails to account for the 16+ references to creation in the the bible When you gather all the creation references,you're going to have a hard time reconciling a young-earth model using the bible alone. Just check out Ps 104 Job 38,39 for starters. There are several references to 'the stretching of the heavens" which perfectly describes our current knowledge of the expanding universe. Further your model does not predict future discoveries nor does it explain present observation made by astronomers. Other than that it's a good beginning. Keep working on it-or not.
Thanks for your comments
Dave Okamura
Sirje,
What happens when it becomes dogma A against dogma B? What a complex situation. When venerable science becomes a dogmatic institution, full with ecclesiastical authority, and a it adopts a hierarchy of priesthood? New ideas and knowledge do not flourish in such a dogmatic scientific world view. Science suffers the same problems as any other human institution.
Chris, I am not a mathematician, but if one began with one couple, and no one ever died and fertility continued for questionable years what would the exponential population be if there has only been 6,000 years since its beginning?
I DID mean this statement: "Death should not be seen as a curse, but essential to the appreciation of life." Having lived to the expected age of 85, I have no desire to live forever. Why should that be surprising?
No one knows what life would be like if there was no death. Do you? There is much speculation of a possible life before death, envisioned as a paradise, but very little has been written about the possibility of an earth where there is no death. Thinking of all the potential, there is much more involved than human death, but plant, animal, even the bodies' metabolism is a difficult conjecture.
If you have seriously considered "life" without death, please enlighten the rest of us so we can appreciate the idea as you seem to. Science-fiction is a very imaginative endeavor, please tell us your creative imagining.
Chris,
Should there even be dogma? Can we ever know that there is no more to learn and that I, or my church, or my science texts have all the knowledge there is.
Human nature is such that we tend to build walls to protect ourselves. Religious institutions do it, but so do scientific institutions - educational institutions. Once something organizes into an institution it begins to work toward self-preservation; and it's always a struggle to keep the original momentum of discovery and growth going.
All those people who left the comfort of their religious homes to embark on a new journey were once called heretics, some to die for their bravery. Christianity wouldn't be what it is without heretics. Jesus was a heretic once as the Jewish institution saw Him as a threat to their dogma.
As you have pointed out, what do we really know about anything as it really is. This world is full of smoke and mirrors. All we can really do is share our knowledge and our perceptions while we respect the other guys viewpoint, but we don't have to all think the same thoughts and come to the same conclusions - we can't, because we all have a different vantage point from which we see our world. We always have something to learn from somebody as our position shifts and we see things in a different light. Is it scary - you bet.
Should there even be dogma?
Nice thought :) Some of my views may be heretical compared with church dogma. I have no issue at all with your argument against dogma. Go for it.
My issue wasn't to do with the problems inherent with dogma/heresy etc. You were the one who brought up the word dogma. I understood that you were associating my beliefs with the problems inherent with dogma. And so I think you were potentially employing an ad hominem argument. But, not all dogma is necessarily bad or wrong.
Elaine,
Please, forgive me for questioning that you said what you meant.
I do trust God's plan, no matter what happens really. I don't have much choice. It appears to me upon reflection, that you do as well. My speculations may be wrong - I hope that is OK. I'm glad you can enjoy them.
David,
Thanks for the clarification. I think I might have misunderstood you earlier.
You asked. Examination of all your beliefs requires some kind of testing, don't you think?
Yes, true, of course there needs to be good reason for believing. But some of those reasons are beyond scientific testable reach. Morality, spirituality and many other religious beliefs are beyond scientific testing.
For example, how do we test weather or not Christ possibly created us (John 1)?
Sometimes we have pragmatic reasons rather than scientific rationalisations.
Dear All, please excuse this very personal reply to Bevin, I hope it provides you all with some idea of my back ground, and that you are happy for me to continue to contribute to the discussion here, as I am very interested in what you all have to say. I am sorry to its lateness, I think I may be in a very different time zone to you guys!
In response to Bevin:
Clement - do you dare answer the following four questions
(1) Which branch of science do you practise in?
I work at the border of molecular biology, chemistry and physics, trying to understand the processes of life at atomic level resolution. I did my undergraduate degree in Chemistry at the University of Cambridge, UK where I also got my PhD in Protein Folding (Biochemistry) and I now work at the University of St Andrews, Scotland where my research deals with protein-DNA interactions involved in DNA replication and repair, and understanding the genetic control utilised by RNA molecules in the cell.
(2) Are you paid by any part of the SDA denomination?
No, I am not. I am not an SDA, but close relatives of mine are, and so I have been looking into the beliefs of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. I am a committed christian, having been brought up a Methodist (Like Adventism's esteemed prophet I believe!) but am now finding more and more truth within the Catholic Church (which I hope won't prejudice anyone on here against my comments!).
(3) Do you think that there has been life on Earth for more than 100,000 years?
The absolutely vast majority of scientific research points to this conclusion. As scientists, we always try and explain all the present data with the best model, and currently the best model seems to be that life is very old. I think that evolution as a process is something that God could have used to create us, molding us from clay (a gradual process by which he made us from the very earth, star dust etc).
I don't believe that this view takes anything away from our dignity as humans, which instead is derived from the fact that God became man. It is the incarnation which gives humanity its dignity - that God deigned to become one of us - this shows us our purpose, our example and or goal, and in becoming human, Christ won for us our life of Grace, which is a share in the divine life of the Trinity, for this is eternal life; that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent (John 17:3).
(4) What is your real name - Tim Craggs
You talk about 'causing weaker members to fail'. Telling lies for God might keep some members around, but it also causes others to leave Christianity, and others to never become Christians.
I meant to talk about causing weaker members to FALL not fail, but that may be my bad typing, sorry! You are right that if we deliberately deceive people, we will never gain their trust. More than this, Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life. We have nothing to fear from the Truth. However, we must be careful only to say what is loving and helpful in every conversation we have. This certainly does not mean lying, or presenting false positions, but it does mean being gentle in everything, only reacting out of love, and never out of a selfish desire to prove that we are right. It is a difficult task, but we are given every grace to help us in it, for we are to bear the fruits of the spirit, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. (Gal 5:22)
Finally, I would say that even as scientists, perhaps especially as scientists we must approach all things with humility, to echo St Paul's thoughts - now we see only dimly, but then we shall things as they are. Even with all our incredible knowledge and understanding now, we know almost nothing of God. In fact, without God choosing to reveal himself to us, we would have no way of knowing Him at all. Thank God that he loved us so much, that He chose to reveal himself to us in such a wonderful, personal and human way, as the Person, Jesus Christ.
Many thanks for bearing with me, I hope you don't mind me contributing occasionally to the thoughts and discussions here. If people would rather, I am happy just to read other peoples thoughts and not write my own. Just let me know.
Clement
Clement, Thank you for sharing with us. I enjoy your comments. Be well.
Clement,
I enjoy your thoughts.
Clement,
thank you for your very open and honest answers. I think we have a lot in common, although my academic background is math, computers, and paramedic training.
You no doubt have noticed the wide range of backgrounds and opinions here - which reflects the composition of the SDA denomination in scope but not in proportion
I am sure your contributions here will be beneficial to all
/Bevin
Tom wrote:
--
Thus Christianity stands or falls on the Creation! Tom
Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 15 November 2009 at 11:31
--
No those texts indicate the concept of a Creator not how the creation occurred. I would grant you that if there was no creation by God in anyway then Christianity has nothing to stand on. Just as I would grant you that if there is no God Christianity has nothing to stand on. Your philosophy of origins however does not create or destroy the reality of God or how God may do something. Ultimately on philosophy you can't simply say no that philosophy is wrong because I don't hold it. Which is unfortunately the most popular method of countering a different philosophy.
Ron
Adventist Media and Conversation Blog
LSU's request to close all topic commenting on Educate Truth seems to still be enforce.
The control they seem to have over Shane seems to be continuing as the sites discussion has rapidly dropped in numbers as well as its place in Google, including the perception that Educate Truth was a strong force against the university.
The dig that LSU was desperate enough to cancel a prayer vigil was cunning and clever on the part of Educate Truth's supporters, however Shane bowed and blew the whole opportunity at a crucial moment in time. It's losing substantial ground and may not ever be able to recover without a strong resurgence of public opinion, which will never happen because open topic commenting continues to be closed.
very sad.
Joe:
"LSU's request to close all topic commenting on Educate Truth seems to still be enforce."
Unless you know something I don't, the truth of the matter is that LSU did not request we close commenting on Educate Truth. Your statement is simply not true. I'm curious as to where you heard or read this.
While comments are closed on a majority of the posts they are open on the new ones, this was done in order to make it more manageable for me. I'm the only one running the website and while this issue is a passion of mine it's not my life. Though it seems like it at times. Comments will continue to be open for all new posts, but only for 14 days each.
Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com
After reading all the posts and hearing about and watching this topic for weeks, I must say that at the end of each day no matter how many texts through scripture or EGW are given for any reason, my wife and her ways are the ways I must realize and walk in. She has NOT yet revealed what time of day or year she was made so the jury is still out but the number 6 is in there somewhere.
My son and I have had numerous discussions on the topic of Creation. He holds a Masters Degree in Religious Studies with Focus on the New Testament. I hold a PHD in motherhood, simply put I am his mom. The idea that we as parents can control the minds of our children is a mith. We may certainly influence their thinking but we cannot control them or anyone else for that matter. God made us free to choose right from wrong, good from bad and so on. Bottom line it does not matter if you believe Creation was made in 6 days or 6 millions years. Suppose you can prove scientifically that your views are directly opposing biblical interpretation of God's literal 6 days of creation. Is that going to make a difference on your relationship with God? Are you going to disregard that Jesus is real and that He came to save us from ourselves? That Jesus would have come even if you were the only individual to be saved? Becasue if in fact you get hung up on the scientific "facts" of anything to support your faith, then hang it up, that is not faith.
My 36+ years as a mom have taught me many, many things and the most important one is that I need to walk daily with Jesus. Through my children I have learned wonderful truths about my Saviour and none of these truths were learned by digging throug mens' knowledge but through God's word. To me it is very simple. I have a choice, believe or not to believe. Let me put this way, when I got married I made a committment to a relationship I truly knew nothing about. I stood by that promise im my choice of this partner for the last 41 years. Has it been easy? Not at all. Did I have evidence that showed me I had made a bad choice? Absolutely yes. Did I walk away when the foundations of this relationship were threatened? No, and no, and no. Why not? Because I believed deep down in my heart with sometimes no supporting evidence that this person was designed to be my partner for the rest of my life. Everyday I am more convinced than ever I chose the right man.
The core of our beliefs are always being put to a test. God in His wonderful mercy designed us with intelligent minds and He wants us to question, to be open for new revelations. It should not perplex us or intimidate us but it should help us grow mentally, emotionally and spiritually. I truly love and cherish the conversations I have with my son who is a graduate of La Sierra University. Ultimately I belive we both learn from each other what a wonderful SAVIOUR we have.
This is the continuation of the lie by Satan who is in constant
conflict with God.
I was educated in SDA schools and taught the beauty of the creation of
this planet.
I am apalled to learn that there are folks who profess to be followers
of Jesus Christ and yet believe the lie perpetrated by Satan to discredit God.
To some, it would seem that it is more important to be accepted in the
realms of academia of man rather than to accept "thus saith the Lord"
This must be what Jesus was telling when He said "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matt 7:13,14
I may never be a professor with a doctorate in science in modern-day academia, but as for me and my house we will believe the Lord of Heaven who said He created the world in six literal days; "the evening and the morning" consisted of one day.
You also have a choice. It just may be the difference between life and death.
/ken
salut je pense acheter une horloge ici
ce marchand est t'il sur?
le site est horloge deco
Add your comment