Makes me glad of three things

(a) The beliefs of the SDA church members are not dictated by the conservatives on PREXAD

(b) That I am neither on PREXAD nor an SDA academic

(c) That I haven't been supporting this foolishness with my time and money for many years

The appalling ignorance behind this phrase "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" shows just how out of touch PREXAD is with science.

/Bevin

Perhaps you could help me understand how this is "middle ground"? It seems as though he is telling people rather nicely that they need to promote creationism. No, he doesn't name names. But that's not what we were looking for anyway! I trust that he will continue to address these issues to the people involved personally.

Elder Paulsen is a consummate politician and administrator as well as a very nice gentleman. It is unfortunate that the aggressive LaSierra haters won't be satisfied with this official statement and will continue to put the screws to both he and the GC until they fold and start a very specific culling process. Politely encouraging professors to promote creationism won't be nearly enough for them. They want blood and lots of it. Unlike Bob Folkenberg Sr. however, Paulsen is far too classy to start heads rolling and set the inquisition in motion - and that is not going to satisfy the cries for firings by the witchunt mob. They want a theological Rottweiller in office, not a peacekeeper.

Erv Taylor was absolutely correct. Let the Ted Wilson flag be raised for 2010.

Bonnie,

"It does not create a committee to investigate any professor or school. It seeks middle ground."

I too would like to know how this is "middle ground." It is saying that you may teach evolution as "science" but you are not to leave them at the "end of the day" thinking a literal 7 day creation did not take place or that the literal "origins of mankind" were "facts" other than creation on the sixth day of creation.

Teach it BUT not as "fact" that evolution is the source of man's origin.

regards,
pat

A very carefully worded statement. That is the natural aftermath of Glacier View. The Church cannot stand another
pogrom. The primary issue of man is destiny not origin.

The great question is "What must I do to be saved?"

S natural correlary is obviously, where did I come from and why am I here?

To compromise on the the second issue profoundly affect the first and the third!

Adventism has absolutely no future as long as it halts between two opinions. Nobody in employ of the SDA church is looking for or even attempting to hasten the return of Jesus.

They merely want to keep their skirts clean until sustantation. May the dollar hold is value. for at least three score and ten. Amen. Tom

Tom: I consider your statement:

"Nobody in employ of the SDA church is looking for or even attempting to hasten the return of Jesus.

They merely want to keep their skirts clean until sustantation."

to be seriously irresponsible! Why do you shoot off these indefensible salvos? It just hurts your credibility IMO.

"...thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation."

Good grief. What does this even mean?

I think what the "middle ground" in this is "You agree to affirm our students' faith in some way and we'll agree not to screen your class syllabi."

Critics will claim that various syllabi and professors don't satisfy this appeal, the school will assert that they do, and the debate will continue until one or both sides get tired and move on to something else.

Tom, Paulsen is doing well to be so cautious and careful in how he approaches this situation. As vocal and influential as the fundamentalists are, Paulsen is, no doubt, well aware that there is also a strong Evangelical, Moderate, Liberal segment in the church who would raise Cain at the first hint of a repeat of Glacierview. The SDA church is much more saavy and aware than back in that fated era. There is no way intolerant, inquisitional, Jack-booted measures against church employees would be tolerated today, at least not by any reasonable SDA. I would like to think that more accountability would be required of Neal Wilson, Keith Parmenter, the Standish brothers and the rest of the jackals who went after Ford in a disgusting display of systematic destruction if thier tactics were attempted in the 2009.

The Adventist administration has never officially apologized for it's disgraceful treatment of Desmond Ford at Glacierview. We had a man in our midst who courageously preached the pure Reformation Gospel and he was exiled and treated as a pariah for his troubles. He is still a pariah to this day. Abandoned by the church he loved, he has had no recourse except to remove his name from the books of PUC, something Gillian Ford claims Robert Folkenberg Sr. and others had been hounding and pressuring the PUC pastoral staff to do for years. Thank goodness they were told to take a hike in no uncertain terms.

Last I heard, Ford was appling at a Baptist teaching institution. Of course, he is having problems qualifying because of his firm stance on the Sabbath.

Will the Adventist church do the honorable, right thing and repudiate it's past actions of tyranny? Or will it continue to hide itself in its pontifical robes and lash at out at anyone who dares to challenge the status quo or think for themselves? I think we know the answer to this. The church has never nor will it ever admit to any wrong-doing with Ford. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. But there is a reckoning coming for any church who treats a teacher of the Gospel of Paul and Luther in such a fashion. Make no mistake, an injustice had been committed, and the perpetrators hid behind theological integrity when the real reasons were less than honorable: Try dirty church politics and corrupt social engineering for starters. To be sure, Paulsen is not eager to carry on that putrid, purile legacy, so he is broaching the LaSierra fiasco with velvet gloves.

Yes, Ford is exiled for teaching what many contemporary Adventists today have come to believe anyhow: That the IJ, as taught in its traditional form, is a legalistic doctrine that destroys the assurance of salvation. How's that for irony? This fine man is treated as garbage while men like Larry Kirkpatrick and Kevin Paulson continue to spew thier 'sinful nature of Christ' heresy with no voices of protest heard.

What a farce. God weeps at this disgusting spectacle.

Glacierview was a fraud and a sham and a vile display of dirty church politics. No honest discussion on Ford's research was ever done by the admin. They did not even look at his document. The majority of the scholars who did read his 991 page document agreed with Ford. These same scholars wrote and signed a petition to Wilson decrying and protesting the firing of this fine man. Careful research and consideration of church history bears out that nothing of the sort took place except by the scholars, who agreed with Ford's research. Ford's conclusions were rejected by the admin on the basis of EGW's endorsment of the IJ, nothing more. Raymond Cottrell revealed the whole, sad, sordid affair of backroom political finagling that went on. The whole meeting was arranged to save the presidency of Keith Parmenter and Neal Wilson and to make an example of Ford. Parmenter and Wilson were under serious pressure from the fundamentalists who wanted Ford out.

If the church really wants to allow thier ministers, scholars and teachers to do some independent thinking, they had better be prepared for whatever results may come of it. Not punish them by ripping away thier livelihood because they don't come to the same conclusions as the Traditional party line. Still, many fundamentalists seem to think that it is entirely acceptable to indulge in these tactics of Rome with impunity and with a free conscience.

Wilson was a Judas, sacrificing his friend Ford on the altar of tradition over honest research.

Paulsen, at least, has raised the bar a little higher in his presidential conduct.

Rich

I just did a short hand of Hightdweller. I just read what
equivocations your guys write. It is a plain as day. I have 60 years of yes buts to prove my point. Give me one that proves me wrong. When is that last time you wrote or even read something by an employee that defends either Des Ford or MariKay Silver? The Church is a closed system about to be torn apart by its "friends" no less.

I will not live long enough to see my prediction come true.
But it is true none the less. The fact is Spectrum has played a major role in Paulsen's equivocation.

Rich.

I am very careful about what I write. Takoma Park is running scared and you and I know it. They are on the losing side in North America at least. That is where the cash flow is or at least has been. If you are on sustenstation, you had better check on where and how it is vested. If you don't, you either believe your condemnation of my comments or you are dumber than I thought. Tom

Acting out of doctrinal conviction and moral urgency, Doctor Sean Pitman and those who see things pretty much as he does have won this round. The least others can do is congratulate them and wonder why they yielded such an easy victory.

As this Sabbath approaches California, our church is in a much more difficult spot on these issues than it was a month ago. In my view this is because a few people called for war and others on all sides of the debate obliged them by broadcasting inflammatory and insulting material on the Internet and elsewhere. Nothing others tried succeeded in bringing about a truce.

Because they are profound and pervasive, the issues about which many honest inquirers have been trying to have a mutually beneficial conversation will not go away. But they will even more difficult to address.

"What if they called for war and no one showed up?" people used to ask. I often wonder.

David, I had no doubts that Paulsen was going to come down on the side of the critics. He pretty much has to as president of a worldwide organization dedicated to preserving traditional beliefs and doctrine. You cannot blame the man for protecting his own behind. What I did anticipate was that he was not going to give in to the rallying cries of employee termination and he hasn't. For that we can be thankful.

I admit, I was one of those who called for war on the non-conservative side. I have always been a fighter and I hate bullies, especially those in the church. Perhaps I am misguided, but I don't see how else you can realistically deal with people who will use a petition (some of the comments on it lately are just ridiculous) to intimidate the GC into conducting a purge. I honestly do not see how a truce would work with a contingent being whipped into a blood-thirsty frenzy by the likes of Sean Pittman, Shane Hilde and David Asscherick.

Tom, I will make one more comment and then leave it, as this exchange is a digression. You wrote:

"Nobody in employ of the SDA church is looking for or even attempting to hasten the return of Jesus."

'Nobody' means not one single person who picks up a paycheck from "the SDA church is looking for ... the return of Jesus".

Not even one. Zilch. Zero. The term 'is looking' refers to the person's personal belief - which I cannot believe anyone short of God can discern, let alone count. Yet you have supplied a count and it is 'none'.

And you say you are careful about what you write. How is this sentence remotely defensible?

How is it possible to believe in the historicity of Gen. 1 when this chapter suggest that the earth was created in six days and on the fourth of those six days all the "stars" were created. That is prima facie evidence against the historicity of that passage.

One Race, Indivisible.

Here I would submit is the "middle Ground":
--
As your pastor, however, I appeal to you that when you take your students out on the journey, you bring them safely back home before the day is over. And their home must always be in the world of faith. You owe it to the students, you owe it to God, you owe it to their parents, you owe it to the church, and you owe it to yourself as a believer to safely guide them through difficult moments on their journey.
--

The world of faith is huge, Intelligent Design puts faith in an unseen Designer, Theistic Evolution puts faith in the hands of an unseen God. They are a part of the faith community thought they differ on origins and processes. We already know that there is numerous differences in Old Earth and Young Earth creationists. With obvious differences in the methods of development of organisms of the world. Faith should be in the person one has faith (God) and not the interpretation of ones Biblical analysis.

If Paulsen means faith in God in his statement we have middle ground. If Paulsen means faith in SDA traditional interpretation of a literal 24 hour day creation and worldwide flood then we have no middle ground.

the sad thing is the political statement however diplomatic it may be does not give anybody enough information to move from their present positions. So it is a move to a middle ground only in theory not in any practical way. Each side can see what they want in the statement. It will not satisfy anyone nor should it. But then again even if he came down on one side or the other what would that prove. He is not the dictator of Adventist thought he is merely trying to reconcile factions in bureaucratic fashion. The battle of interpretation of science and the Bible will continue as long as we all live. Only the how we can get along with each other has any potential for resolution. Possibly that is the far more important area of interest inside a church family anyway. Churches can keep splitting and splitting as our Protestant history has shown or we can learn to accept different views inside the family of Christ's followers.

That is our only real choice and it is way past time for some church to implement that choice!

Ron

The Know Nothings have prevailed again. So who expected anything different?

Alpha -- God in everything (pantheism) -- Omega -- God in nothing (evolution)? "The omega will be of a most startling nature." Is teaching evolution as the only possible way in an Adventist institution startling -- or will be see something more startling?

"The Time of the End" by James L. Hayward is very interesting.

Old Adventists may say, "Been there, done that." New Adventist say, "Interesting; interesting indeed."

Jody ;)

Ron

Although it may become more anemic as a significant number of its members bleed away, I doubt that the SDA church will ever split (if by this one means that some congregations will break away and form a new denomination).

This is because the conference associations own all the property, not the local congregations.

I doubt that there is the ability and willingness to develop a new denomination literally from the ground up.

This means that you are right: we only have one option and that is to learn how to live together.

We might as well get started!

Dave

Why would anyone desire to start a new denomination? What could be the reason?

Those who vote with their feet are legion and the church is aware that it is revenue (read--tithe) that is the liquid that keeps the wheels moving. As that dries up, either there will be change or drastic cutting back.

The financial shenanagins of the church could, and do fill a tome.
As nothing has ever been done to punish those wrong-doers, simply move them to other positions; while theological differences are the most likely reason for either leaving or removing those who are labeled "dissidents" demonstrates the third rail of the church is not "cooking the books" or Ponzi-type schemes, but challenging stated belief. This is the history of the SDA church with the bodies of former pastors and teachers. It is the only M.O. the church uses.

Rich

1. Did you read the blog of a few days ago, in which someone at Andrews wrote that half or so of the faculty wish they could find another post outside of Adventism.

2. Have you sat is a pew and listened to a SDA sermon lately?

3. have you read the blogs on Spectrum from the "Ordianed".

4. Have you read the thought pieces by SDA Scholars in the past 20 years?

When I wrote no one, I wrote in the context of Takoma Park!
No one near, at, or surrounding the center of power. That is anyone at risk to speak or put their thoughts to paper with any degree of influence or impack or remotely thought to have such. The Go With the Flow is evidence enough to more than support my statement.

The above statement by the President of the General Conference confirms my statement beyond all doubt. The power structure of the Church is neutered to steal a phrase from an old warrior. That means what it says--no new generations. Period. I am not glad about it, I take no pleasure in it. I put far too much into it to wish anything but growth in Truth. Compromise is neither Truth nor Growth. Tom. I also rest my case.

P.S.

Rich

1. If E. G. White is wrong on origins.

2. if E. G. White is wrong about sexual self abuse.

3. Why would anyone with cognitive skills have any reason to believe that she is correct on end-time or anything in between?

There goes the ballgame. Tom

Elaine wrote:
--
Why would anyone desire to start a new denomination? What could be the reason?
--

I did not mean to infer a new denomination out of SDAism. The trend in the last 50 years is independent congregational churches. Denominationalism is I suspect a dying institution. But the Protestant history is pretty clearly splits over a variety of doctrine, of course some had to be expected such as free will vs. no free will. I would not have expected something like origins to be another such cause. But when you think about it the origins is also based upon Biblical interpretations so a split there is really as likely as anything else.

Ron

David Larson, I am surprised by the cynicism implied by your remark about the denomination never splitting because the conference owns the church property.

Do you have such a low opinion of churchmembers? I doubt it. The people who are riled up now, Colin Standish, for example, have experience in building something from nothing. He has been a key mover in the establishment of two colleges, essentially from the ground up. If he can put together a college, surely those of a similar mind could put together a congregation or even a new denomination

The Boston Movement of the Church of Christ split away from their mainline and established numerous large congregations of young believers in multiple large cities around the world. They simply rented meeting halls in hotels, theaters, and other places, even meeting in parks at times.

I saw them fill L.A. Convention Center auditorium with thousands and thousands of young people from all over Southern California.

It's a mistake to underestimate what the Holy Spirit can do in the lives of those who want to glorify Jesus.

What do you think will happen if Ted Wilson soon becomes president? Do you think his appetite was sated when mustard was purged from the cafeteria? Was that the end or just the beginning?

There are or have been lawsuits in court over property disputes involving Episcopal, Lutheran, and Presbyterian churches.

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15195

Ron, it is just such situations that initiate congregationalism: no more centralized denominational control. This is the greatest fear in Silver Spring, I fear. It is also the trend in many other churches, and there goes the tithe with congregationalism.

"What do you think will happen if Ted Wilson soon becomes president. Do you think his appetite was sated when mustard was purged from the cafeteria? Was that the end or just the beginning?"

Say what?? He.....ordered that mustard be removed from the cafeteria?! You cannot be serious. And this is a man who is a forerunner for GC president?

God help us all.

I almost lost my iced tea...hard to keep a straight face when reading such a thing as mustard being removed from the cafeteria. Glad to know someone took a stand on the insidious mustard problem. What, pray tell, does mustard have to do with God? Oh yeah, Ellen said...

I wish the Adminstrators at the GC could really understand what they are asking for:

"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."

The cardinal virtue of a scientist is integrity. True scientists simply can not teach creationism convincingly if they don't actually believe it.

Among my teachers at Walla Walla College was Dr. McCloskey. His honesty and integrity about evolution convinced me that his insights about spiritual matters were equally authentic. Some Adventists will simply never be strong creationists. Those adventists need role models such as Dr. McCloskey and others who are not afraid of being openly Christian and openly agnostic about origins.

If the church can allow members to become soldiers in the army or marines and train (and even actually) kill people, then surely we can be equally open about the scientists in our midst.

Martin S

Martin,

I think that what you've said here is as important as anything that has been said since this looooooong conversation began some time ago.

Thank you for saying it!

So Paulsen is calling for both a "scientifically rigorous exposure to" a recent literal six-day creation week and then an "affirmation" of it. Good luck with that. Calling for a scientifically rigorous exposure to a recent literal creation week is brave but this is a situation where one must be careful what one wishes for. I've heard Paulsen is quite sharp - does he really think that a scientifically rigorous exposure leads to an affirmation?

Deleted

Regarding Mustard:

http://www.atoday.com/content/ted-%E2%80%9910-it-inevitable-ted-wilson-w...

I'm neutral on the issue. More information is needed regarding the type of mustard and whether the SOP counsel applies to modern mustard. Why not give Brother Wilson some leeway, until all the facts are known?

Hansen 7

I apologize for coming across to you as cynical. That was not my intent.

I was trying to point out that SDAism is not likely to "split" in the sense that I used the word because of the financial reality of the situation.

For what it is worth, I am not a congregationalist and I think it is a good thing for church properties to be owned by the conference associations. Preventing "splits" is one reason.

Again, it was not my intent to be cynical and I apologize for leaving that impression.

Dave

Beth,

I agree, and actually this time, I think I understand where Bevin is coming from as well.

The article had,

"Sometimes the findings of science may reflect some of this, but often not. Faith is certainly not subject to findings of science."

and then

"scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation"

Trying to have it both ways. Maybe on the surface there is nothing wrong with that. But when it is posed that the competing models are the falsification of eachother, then something has to give.

I don't know if anyone believes that there is any positive scientific evidence for a literal, recent six-day creation, that falsifies evolution!? There may be some, but I am not aware of it. I believe in creation for other reasons. The only physical evidence I have ever seen for recent creation is problems with long age evolution, 'reductio ad absurdum' type - which often turn out to be straw man arguments anyway. Even Irreducible Complexities are no more than 'reductio ad absurdum' type arguments, and end up being straw men. I wish I knew what rigorous scientific arguments he was talking about to support creation.

For me, I am happy to keep my belief in creation validated as a religious faith, rather than validating it on scientific knowledge. And, you know the model I have posed to do that, I have been enjoying thinking about that in the last few weeks. And so, this president's response kind of surprises me, to suggest that scientific rational should be used to maintain faith in a supernatural event, I agree it is not necessary, and could confuse the issue if the laws of physics have changed due to sin.

On the other hand. It is a lot more complex than that. I do think that the science teachers need to be aware that there are ways to maintain faith in literal creation without it being falsified by science. I think it important for the teacher to allow the students room to be able to come to their own conclusions about that. In an SDA institution, to show some support for the religious faith in Creation - and to be honest and present some of the problems of evolution, and what creationists believe about that. To allow the students room to think for themselves, not be overwhelmed to come to any quick conclusions, and to not enforce that either creation or evolution is falsified. And I think more importantly, the possibility that they don't have to be the falsification of each-other. One model is validated on scientific rationale, and the other on religious rationale.

A double negative is a positive but two wrongs don't make a right! Scientists can measure. Scientists, can observe, Scientists can postulate. scientists can test their hypothesis within limits, but Scientists cannot prove without
replication. Thus the theory of evolution remains a theory and the doctrine of creationism remains a doctrine. Both are subjects of faith. The complexity of design suggests to me a very exquisite designer. To others it suggests eons of trial and error. (Some would attempt a compromise by suggesting that God just gave a nudge once in a while.)

Neither scientists nor churchmen have proof that will stand up in court or in the laboratory.

The Christian Church is built upon the person of Jesus Christ, His birth, His Life, His sayings, His Trial, His Death, His Resurrection, and His Promises. Among those sayings are The Great I Am! The Creator God who fashioned Adam from clay and Eve from a rib.

Since logic or the lack of it seems to be at the center of this conservation--it seems crystal clear that one cannot hold to the validity of the claims of Jesus and also hold to the postulates of an evolutionary process.

For a God who claims to be from everlasting to everlasting the issue of time is moot.

Obviously a Church can be anything it set forth as its creed or fundamental beliefs. But it cannot be Christian and deny, limit, or accomadate other possiblities or any of the assertions of the Lord Jesus Christ.

To assert other means such a one is on another wave length.

One of the marks of greatness is to know and accept one's limitation--time before history is one of those limitations. Even history is seen thrugh a glass darkly. Tom

Chris,
If most creationists took your view and most evolutionists would be willing to take a minute to try and understand your view, I don't think we would be having anything close to these problems.

IMO strict creationism makes good theological sense, I understand the importance of it to SDA and Christian foundations, and I understand why people want so much to hold onto it as a possibility. I understand how complicated things get the farther away one moves from that as well.

For many people, maintaining an agnostic even purposefully ignorant view about the science while affirming the essence of the Genesis story works well. My parents have adopted this, saying things like, "How is a mystery. We don't really know much about it. I'm looking forward to heaven and learning about it," while avoiding actually studying the science that we do have. Since I hardly believe that an understanding of evolution is important for salvation, I personally support and even encourage this view.

However, avoiding the science doesn't work well for those who want to make a living at biology. Those same studiously agnostic and/or strict creationist people need to understand that science does not support a strict creationist view (to put it mildly). Telling those of us who are interested in the science to leave is unhelpful and silly really.

I wouldn't be so quick to declare victory as if this is some sort of zero sum game.

There are no winners in fights like this. But there is truth to be shared and Martin S. gets us closer to it. In his comment above he shares why rigorous and honest academic training (not merely apologetic defense) and understanding how to integrate evolution into Adventism actually leads to a stronger faith.

It's worth repeating:

Among my teachers at Walla Walla College was Dr. McCloskey. His honesty and integrity about evolution convinced me that his insights about spiritual matters were equally authentic. Some Adventists will simply never be strong creationists. Those adventists need role models such as Dr. McCloskey and others who are not afraid of being openly Christian and openly agnostic about origins.

Martin S

Remember that the opposite of faith is not doubt, by certainty. Just like science.

From Paulsen's statement:

"As your pastor, however, I appeal to you that when you take your students out on the journey, you bring them safely back home before the day is over."

Sounds a lot like "coitus interruptus" to me. If you must go there, just get the heck out before the commitment is made.

kdj

Acceptance of the doctrine that the earth was created 6000 years ago, or 10,000, requires acceptance of some variant on an "apparent age" theory: that God created the earth with evidence built in of great age.

There are two problems with this: 1) can we worship a God who deceives us in this way? and 2) if one accepts apparent age it would seem just as logical to believe that we were all created five minutes ago, but imbedded within each of us is a memory of a lifetime of events that did not really happen.

Neither of these alternatives seems plausible.

Don

Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions describes what is happening now in Adventism with startling accuracy. In it, Kuhn describes paradigm shifts and how and why they occur. He alternately uses "Revolutionary Science" to describe the phenomenon.

For Kuhn and the many who have built on his proposals, paradigm shifts occur this way:

1. A paradigm is firmly established. It becomes the universally accepted explanation for a phenomenon. For our purposes, a literal, six-day divine creation extracted from the text of Genesis 1.

2. Anomalies begin to accrue. For Kuhn, anomalies are events or pieces of evidence that challenge or contradict the dominant paradigm, and for which the dominant paradigm cannot account. For our purposes, evidences from astrophysics, geology, biology, and genetics (to name a few) which demonstrate convincingly that the cosmos/universe is incredibly old, and that the earth is too, and further, that life on earth is very ancient, and finally, common ancestry among species.

3. Flood of anomalies produces a crisis. When enough evidences that are inexplicable according to the old paradigm accrue, the old paradigm is shown to be untenable, creating a crisis for the old paradigm. For our purposes, the evidences listed above plus biblical criticism (in the scholarly sense of the term) and contemporary theological scholarship leading to ongoing discussions of evolution and creation.

4. New models are proposed. Researchers, Scholars, and Students propose alternate models moving toward a new paradigm and accounting for or accommodating anomalies. For our purposes, the three International Conferences on Faith and Science (2002-2004), the book Creation Reconsidered: Scientific, Biblical and Theological Perspectives, and the science curriculum currently under attack, to cite three examples.

5. A new dominant paradigm emerges and struggles ensue. A new model gains wide acceptance and intellectual conflicts occur between proponents of the new model and stalwarts of the old paradigm. For our purposes, the current discussion of evolution and creation including President Paulsen's statements above.

6. The new paradigm becomes the accepted model. The new paradigm does not generally gain acceptance because all parties are persuaded and converted, but rather by the passage of time and the passing of stalwarts of the old paradigm. For our purposes, the future of Adventist education.

In light of how Thomas Kuhn would likely characterize the events that have transpired in the last month or two, I would propose that those who are talking about "victory" or "defeat" have misread the situation in a significant way.

Why in God's name does every one seem to be stuck on 6000-10,000 years. There is no Scripture, not even the Chronolgies that fix such a time frame. Only man and his mentor Satan are capable of falsehood by manipulation of the evidence.

To demand a seventh day Sabbath and concede to a work in process is an oxymoron.

Regardless, I know in whom I have believed and I know that He is capable. The very rocks cry out in honor of His Lordship.

Concede to the ego of man or the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
That is the ultimate question--not sundown to sundown of any day of the week.

Spectrum, as frequently its want, tends to debate the worng question for the wrong reason. "We the wise, challenge you the administratively strong, within bounds of fellowship." Right and wrong is beside the issue.

So with three children graduates of LSU/LLU, all grandchildren are graduates of either the Univrsity of Georgia Southeern or Southern Illinois Univesity. All have a higher regard for the Christ event than the Phd's in theology at LSU/LLU. Talk and write over the heads of the laity and with in bounds of the administration, take your monthly check and live happily ever after.

I have worked with Frtiz and hold him in high regard. It seems at the end of a career he has become a brillant coward. For shame--even Rick Rice is into brain game. And all of the time, I thought you guys were men without strings, fear, or compromise. The almight dollar is a poor choice in the face of an Almight God. Take a job teaching senior English in a Riverside Highschool. The world will be a better place for it and you will have saved your soul and sleep a lot bettr at night. Tom

Hmmm... Try this comparison.

Science is to nature

like

Theology is to the Bible.

One should not confuse theology with the Bible and science with nature. Science as well as theology are not inherent truth, whereas nature and the Bible are (faith statement here about the Bible). Just because theology says something about the Bible doesn't make it true that that is what the Bible actually teaches. It is one person's or a group of people's view of what the Bible teaches. Science is the same way about nature.

Just as theology can have heresy, so can science. It just depends on which group is in power as to what and how heresy is defined. Both science and theology have presuppositions and prejudices that affect how they interpret nature and the Bible.

The thing that I find puzzling is how a person can believe in evolution and believe in redemption itself. They are polar opposites. Jesus taught a literal creation and Paul did too, so why believe them? The Bible becomes just a bunch of fairy tales. The evolutionist should be logically consistent and dump the whole thing. Be agnostic or athiestic, buddhist or whatever, but don't be Christian or SDA (other than maybe in the admiration of its ethics and/or values). Claiming to believe that which is seen as a farce and a fraud is dishonest to oneself, others or both, and is a 5th columnist to believers in the church. (Maybe that is the reason for staying...?)

-- bh

Maybe part of the solution here would be to encourage SDA college students to take a course on the Bible as literature. Understanding and relating to certain of the Old Testament texts as metaphor would go to great lengths to relinquish the death grip of a dysfunctional twisting of science to conform to a narrow, literalist interpretation because people are stuck. At the same time, faith can be preserved.

Let’s step outside of Genesis 1 & 2 for a moment to see how this might work with other classic OT narratives: reflect on those vivid stories we all learned in childhood like Jonah being swallowed by a giant fish, Daniel in the lion’s den, crossing the Red Sea and the River Jordan as if on dry land, the three Hebrews in the fiery furnace, et al. We’ve traditionally perceived them as miracles of God’s dramatic intervention, yet they stretch the credulity of many thoughtful readers.

What if you viewed those marvelous narratives from a literary perspective as “metaphors?” A common thread in these is the personal death and rebirth one experiences, that no matter how despairing the circumstances, in the end God is with us, and we’re likely to weather our dire predicament no matter how bleak it appears. Whether literal or metaphorical, the ultimate outcome is that with God we can prevail, see through it and grow spiritually.

I used to have fits over the apparent out of order sequencing of how things were created in Genesis 1. That is until I reread the Herold Weiss article on Genesis in Spectrum Vol. 9 No.4 (June 1979). Herold explained in his article that the first three days were devoted to making places for what was created on the next three days to inhabit and occupy. That makes great sense to me and I don’t have to be enslaved to a literal interpretation to see a divine plan unfolding, even if metaphorical. Nor must I renounce science or God to embrace this perspective.

Here, a middle path in approaching texts like Genesis 1 & 2 may indicate the inclusion of a literary understanding of themes and symbols as in the language that poets grasp and articulate. I feel we’re often stuck in these rows because of the inability to recognize metaphor, approaching stories as literal newspaper reports rather than told as frameworks to develop and convey important themes; denotation versus connotation. Why not involve our English professors in broadening our general understanding of how to read and take in the language of storylines?

Bruce

Though I told myself weeks ago I was going to avoid the ahem, "Spectrum" blog--I was curious to its official response to Dr. Paulsen's statement. Of course, this blog never fails to amuse me. In this case, I find it hilarious how they always kowtow to Dr. Paulsen. I wonder what they found so "middle ground" in his statement (I imagine if some other GC leader wrote the same thing, Bonnie or Alex would be fulminating about the close-minded dogmatism of our leaders, blah, blah, blah . . . but, I digress.)

Anyway, what is "middle ground" about his unequivocal statement that "we reaffirm the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the historicity of Genesis 1-11: that the seven days of the Creation account were literal 24-hour days forming a week identical in time to what we now experience as a week; and that the Flood was global in nature"? I mean, that's about as literal and fundamental as you can get on creation, is it not? (Glad a few of those posting could see it, too, and see through Bonnie's syncophantic nonsense).

Sure, Elder Paulsen wasn't going to be as in-your-face and as obnoxious about it as I and others can be, but what middle ground did he stake out there? We believe in a literal-six day creation, "forming a week identical in time to what we now experience as a week"--as uncompromising of a stance on a literal creation as one could, possibly, be. (He has to be that specific, too, because we've seen already how dishonest some of the Seventh-day Darwinians have been with language).

What "middle ground" was Bonnie talking about? He said that this is what we believe, strongly affirm, and expect to be taught in our schools. Did he not say that "I appeal to all engaged by our church in the ministries of administration, preaching, teaching, and writing to articulate and reflect our stand as a community on Creation"? And he said, specifically, that "our stand as a community" is a literal six day creation. Did not he write, too, that "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"? Doesn't sound like the slightest wiggle room for the Lee Greers and his ilk to continue doing what they are doing in SDAs classrooms, does it?

So, please, Bonnie, explain to me just what "middle ground" you are talking about. I and others on here just don't see it.

Funny, too, if someone read Bonnie's critique WITHOUT reading what Dr. Paulsen actually wrote, you could get the impression that he was placing a six-day creation on the same level as evolution.

Read what she wrote apart from Dr. Paulsen's statement and tell me if what she wrote truly reflects what he said. Look at this line from Bonnie: "With a six-day creation and evolution acknowledged as being necessary parts of an Adventist school curriculum, the statement stakes out new ground." Give me a break. She tries to make it sound as if both these views are to be taught as equals. Yet that is not what he's saying at all, though you'd never know it by reading her blog.

Cliff,

I believe "the middle-ground" Bonnie describes is evident from the fact that this is a pastoral appeal, not a administrative mandate. Furthermore, while the appeal reiterates and affirms the conclusions of the 2004 executive committee, the tone of the appeal is affirming and encouraging, not derogatory or demeaning. Lastly, this appeal, if followed, allows for a thorough and fair presentation of evolutionary theory, as long as students are "safely brought back home."

In other words, there is no threat of a purging, derogatory branding--atheist, liar, etc., nor is there the suggestion that the teaching of evolution should be expunged from the curriculum.

"The thing that I find puzzling is how a person can believe in evolution and believe in redemption itself. They are polar opposites. "

I find it puzzling that you find it think they are polar opposites, and yet hundreds of millions of christians don't.

/Bevin

The other thing of note in Dr Paulsen's statement is that he is quoting, rather than enforcing or reasserting, the General Conference Executive Committee statement.

I can see reading it as saying "here is how intransigent the conservatives were a few years ago, now here is a much less dogmatic minimum standard for today".

I would have liked to see a more clear affirmation of acceptance of diverse thought, but it is true that the appeal is to bring them home to "a world of faith", but he does not assert that world requires a recent 6-literal-day creation, he largely points out that the GCEC statement says that.

The paragraph reading :
I appeal to all engaged by our church in the ministries of administration, preaching, teaching, and writing to articulate and reflect our stand as a community on Creation. We are a faith-community, and the world of faith is the world in which God's creative powers are on constant display. Sometimes the findings of science may reflect some of this, but often not. Faith is certainly not subject to findings of science is the interpretable one.

He says "our stand as a community on Creation", but which stand does he mean - the Fundamental stand or the GCEC stand?

It is in the eye of the beholder...

/Bevin

Cliff

Glad you found the time to respond and point out the obvious. I am not sure how these guys at Spectrum keep on posting what they do. Middle ground?

At least some of the people that blog have the integrity to admit they are not SDA's and have a different view. But the majority are happy to not only remain members, but also get paid to attack a fundamental position. Any questioning of this is labelled a witch hunt?

For those who choose to continue to misrepresent the SDA church and get paid to do this - show some integrity and move on. You may be 'popular' within the confines of Spectrum but you are causing organisations such as LSU to lose credibility. What would it have taken to actually look into how LSU supports a 6 day creation? There must be some senior staff at LSU that support a 6 day literal creation? But when you read Spectrum you get the impression that anyone who supports this is some kind of conservative, uniformed nut.

But other questions remain specifically with LSU...Why couldn't the LSU President respond with re-affirming the SDA position. Why can't the LSU website publicly support a 6 day literal creation? I would have thought this would be the ideal way to reassure parents, deflect any controversy or petitions and more importantly, let the church get on with what it should be doing - sharing the gospel truth.

I, too, don't see Paulsen as conceeding to the acceptablity of evolution being taught as fact on any level. He is basically saying what many of the LaSierra critics have been saying, albeit in a nicer way: Yes, teach evolution as an alternative that is available, but do not teach it as a viable one. Thus the 'bring them home' addendum.

Far be it for me to claim I am able read the man's mind or successfully guess at his motives, but what the heck. I'll give it a shot.

I suspect that Paulsen, an educated intelligent man, most likely is aware of the scientific shortcomings that the dogmatic EGW endorsed stand on the origins of the earth has. He is also an administrator with the good of the church in mind, first on the list being preserving the status quo and keeping the irritating fundamentalists appeased. Just like with women's ordination (which he supports) his desire is to move slowly, cautiously and carefully. He will not agitate that issue more than he has to and upset the apple cart.

Now I am by no means saying that Paulsen privately believes in Theistic evolution but is publically supporting the party line. What I am saying is that, while being a creationist, he simply has to be aware of the problems science and geology presents to a 6000 year old earth theory. Unfortunately, a man in his position cannot make a big issue of that lest he be branded as taking a stand with the LaSierra individuals. It would be political suicide.

I would also bet he wishes this fiasco would not have happened on his watch and is probably popping some serious Tylenol right about now...

Cliff

I read the statement much as Zane did. I think Bonnie took it to its natural conclusion. You may disagree with that conclusion--but it is inevitable--certainly the College President and the Conference President think so also.

I don't know if you have followed the history of Mercer University. It recently, within the past 20 years, severed itself from the Southern Baptists--The immediate past president was a published agnostic, the university supported him and not the "mother church." I think that the SDA senior colleges are headed that way and soon.

In any case, I don't think that Jan Paulsen helped the situation. But he is haunted by pogrons past. Tom

Cliff,

Elder Paulsen's statement stakes out middle ground in the way he treats the men and women who have dedicated themselves to the ministry of Adventist education.

You seem to undervalue the importance of striking the right tone, focusing on the doctrinal purity of his statement.

The attitude he has displayed toward Adventist educators and expert knowledge in general is a refreshing departure from the usual.

BTW, I'm glad you keep checking in.

Blake

I would have thought this would be the ideal way to reassure parents, deflect any controversy or petitions and more importantly, let the church get on with what it should be doing - sharing the gospel truth.

The ABSENCE OF DATA may be a big factor here. What percentage of potential future payors would each position reassure, and what percentage would it deter?

You ASSUME that the majority of families that have an offspring attend LSU want it to be as fundamental as you are. Maybe so - but also maybe the majority prefer it the way it is now! Without DATA it is just guesswork.

A statistically valid study is needed.

Oh wait. That would require math and reasoning.

/Bevin

Here is what I predicted earlier in the discussion:

"Elder Paulsen is a consummate politician and administrator as well as a very nice gentleman. It is unfortunate that the aggressive LaSierra haters won't be satisfied with this official statement and will continue to put the screws to both he and the GC until they fold and start a very specific culling process. Politely encouraging professors to promote creationism won't be nearly enough for them. They want blood and lots of it."

News of Paulsen's official statement hit the Educate Truth website today, and lo and behold, the first response by a Julie:

"I only hope that Pastor Paulsen takes the next step to assure that those who are teaching evolution either cease or find employment in an institution that agrees with them. That he stepped out and made a concise statement is heartening, but when one does that one must also be willing to follow through even if it means walking through the fire."

http://www.educatetruth.com/evidence/john-mclarty-writes-letter-rebuking...

Like the Billy Joel song says, "PRESSURE!!" DA-DA!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGksmlTWCFE

I love it when I'm right. Nice won't cut it for the baying hounds.

Oh nothing, nothing, nothing but pink slips will do...

We should see if Pope Benedict, former head of the RCC's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or, better known as the Office of the Inquisition, can moonlight and take on another denomination to lead for a while. Maybe the LaSierra/Wisbey haters would enjoy that.

"Ratzinger’s critics have dubbed him “God’s rottweiller”; a sobriquet that captures his combative and polarizing style. He’s lived up to that title by taking the most stridently conservative positions on nearly every social issue."

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney04222005.html

http://www.cafepress.com/godsrottweiler

Nah. Ted Wilson will do. Hide the mustard next year.

A little background. I just completed a PhD in physics, intending to serve at an Adventist college. I went through all that work to lead forays into the joys of quantum mechanics, not to subvert church doctrines. I've been spooked by the attitude many church speakers and writers display on this topic. To me, this statement finds middle ground in a similar way that Adventist scientists balance scientific inquiry with the practice of faith.

Don Rhoads,

Can I point out an alternative to what you suggested, when you said, "the doctrine that the earth was created 6000 years ago, or 10,000, requires acceptance of some variant on an "apparent age" theory: that God created the earth with evidence built in of great age"

I believe that there is another option. That instead of suggesting that God created it that way, rather that the effects of sin changed our world physically, so that thorns are now on roses, that sin allowed death, sin may have caused the appearance of age, and it changed our perception of the laws of nature. Therefore, if the scientific model, based on its naturalistic assumptions, can only see a long age, I don't think that has to falsify recent creation.

Creation is very important to me, and so is science. There is no need to look for conflicts when the frameworks are not even in the same game, supernatural model vs natural model can not falsify each other. I am happy to concede that our current understanding of science can not prove supernatural creation, and so the only models left for science are:

A) Spaghetti Space Monster - but that seems to only have one advocate in Cambridge.

B) Long Age Evolution - Lots of advocates. The axioms of the scientific model of evolution need to be clearly stated, that it takes faith that the uniformitarian assumptions in the fundamental laws of nature are constant.

Yet, our model of creation, and the fall of man and consequently the fall of our whole dominion, that nature itself changed - in what we can only describe as supernatural - i.e. beyond current scientific understanding.

When we are worried that science can falsify the supernatural, I think that is not understanding that science only works within a very limited framework of understanding reality, that belief in the Bible and God clearly challenges anyway.

I think it is blasphemous to be worried that science can falsify creation and it shows a lack of understanding of the limits of science. Christian science teachers should be the first to point this out. This is for people on both sides of the argument!

Nightdweller,

You said, "I, too, don't see Paulsen as conceeding to the acceptablity of evolution being taught as fact on any level."

I've been thinking about the problem with the word 'fact'. That it is not understood that the word fact can be taken at more than one level. This is part of the confusion that I see going on. I think it interesting that you pointed this out.

Note that Paulsen does say that evolution should be taught. It just depends on what you think which level of 'fact' he is talking about. If he allows it to be taught, surely at some level there are some 'facts' involved in the model.

Well said, Zane. Once again, someone with actual graduate training in philosophy sees the obvious middle ground that Elder Paulsen struck.

It's unfortunate that over and over some of the loudest voices on the other side of this issue keep publicly embarrassing themselves by flaunting their autodidact fear of Darwin as some sort of virtue.

Zane's comment is worth repeating, since apparently even reading what's on this page, much less a history of hermeneutics, is too hard for some of the self-appointed critics here:

Cliff,

I believe "the middle-ground" Bonnie describes is evident from the fact that this is a pastoral appeal, not a administrative mandate. Furthermore, while the appeal reiterates and affirms the conclusions of the 2004 executive committee, the tone of the appeal is affirming and encouraging, not derogatory or demeaning. Lastly, this appeal, if followed, allows for a thorough and fair presentation of evolutionary theory, as long as students are "safely brought back home."

In other words, there is no threat of a purging, derogatory branding--atheist, liar, etc., nor is there the suggestion that the teaching of evolution should be expunged from the curriculum.

I should clarify that the 'on any level' comment was meant to describe Paulsen's concessions, not that evolution is not fact on any level. In other words, I wasn't seeing that Paulsen was surrendering ground on any level as far as promoting evolution over creationism. Perhaps a comma would have changed the intent of my statement:

"I, too, don't see Paulsen as conceeding to the acceptablity of evolution being taught as fact. Not on any level."

I suppose by 'fact' I meant in the sense of evolution as the more viable, probable explanation of the origins of man.

Certainly macro-evolution is something that everyone in the debate would agree is observable in nature.

Perhaps by saying 'middle ground' it is more the attitude and approach under consideration than the actual brass tacks of what is going to be allowed as the prevailing theory taught in the classes of our universities. I don't think Bonnie meant to give the impression that Paulsen was trying to find a compromise as far as giving equal promotion, equal footing and equal validity to both creation and evolution.

Cliff and others are saying THAT middle ground is not there. And I agree, it's not, because I don't think that was the intent of the article.

Paulsen's message comes through quite clearly, even though it is stated in the nicest way possible: Creation is top dog and evolution is the mongrel as far as official church policy is concerned.

Nightdweller,

Thanks for the clarification. I still think many may be stuck in the paradigm that naturalistic can falsify supernatural. I think this is a mistake. I think if they could move out of that paradigm, they could see that one does not have to be portrayed as the underdog. Rather, simply that one is limited to only current scientific understanding, whereas the other has a deeper faith based validation - which is ultimately more important in a Christian context. This is not the fault of the model of evolution, or to denegrate the model in any way, this is honestly the limitations of naturalistic science itself. I don't mind if current science can only see evolution, that is because science is limited to work within naturalistic axioms of time and space, in a nature that has been changed by sin. Evolution may be the only correct model if we were limited to those axioms. But religious faith is not limited to these axioms.

Jared--

Love your summary of Kuhn (I've been a long time fan of his work, however much I know that of late it has been challenged by many scientists and philosophers of science). The only problem, however, is that you're not dealing here with scientce only; you're dealing with revealed truth as well, so I'm not sure how his dynamic would play into this.

WmBlake--Would love to communicate with you in person. Would you email me at goldsteinc@gc.adventist.org? Thanks.

Cliff

Chris, I don't believe your "sin changed the natural laws and made it look old" concept is viable. But I don't think the viability of an approach is the issue here.

Paulsen at least didn't overtly side with the "my way or highway" bully group.

/Bevin

Cliff and Jared

I don't thnik history will confirm The SDA model coming out of Gen 1.

It came out of Joseph Bates who go it from the Seventh-day Baptists, of course, out of Gen. 1

However, E.G.White stole it from Joseph Bates and found it in the Most Holy Place in the open Ark of the covenant in which the Fourth Commandment shone forth as Gold!. Naturally she use Ex. 20 as the source text for the tables of stone not Deut.5. which explicitly references the freedom from slavry as the reason for Sabbath keeping.

The White's skewed history to their ends and the Church has used their model ever since. This thread is a good example.

Paulsen wants peace at any cost and yet his apologists would claim he is standing firm. From now to the opening of the fall term should be interesting to watch.

Elder Paulsen as chief "Pastor" should have said: "teach what you want, just don't call it the truth or the belief system of traditional Adventism." You may say, and most likely will, that it is the prevailing thught of science and significant theologians- to which you generally subscribe.

If so, you are free to continue without a challenge from me or the central body. Don't let the witch hunters trouble you. We have outgrown that troublesome era.

Then he will write a long article in Ministry and say pastors "Preach the Gospel, don't attack anyone or any ideology. We are in the End-Time, let the beginning take care of itself!" Our Sabbath is the Sabbath of the Epistle to the Hebrews, we rest in His redemptive love. We rest as He did on the Sabbath-Day. We are forword looking not backward condemning. We know in whom we have believed--We know He called sinner to repentance--let us do the same." Then he can pray Lord what else could I do: given these stiffnecked scholars you gave me!"

So the Church ends up with three adult classes, then two, and finally one. They try to pay an honest tithe on Social Security and Medicare but it becomes an increasingly difficult task. No money even for mustard or leeks or garlic. And to top it off 89 percent are on a salt free diet. Some would insist on calling it the final perfect generation. Tom

I find all the introspection of what "we" hold as SDAs interesting but all one has to do to find scientists that support Paulsen's postition is go no further than John Baumgardner's website www.globalflood.org and see you can't find support for macroevolution no matter where you look, microevolution, yes, but the flaws and gyrations one has to go through with dating mechanisms and common ancestry with apes, is not hard to dispose of.

Spectrum swallows the whole of the evolutionist's side when it is difficult to swallow. Study, you'll see the evolutionists have presented nothing to be afraid of.

On the point of Sabbath, SDAs can protect their Sabbath by studying the most recent phenome of New Covenant Theology. It will point one to the right reason for a Sabbath and it being a shadow of the real Sabbath, Jesus Christ. Hedge on this one and the term cult rears its ugly head again which Hank Handegraff helped us out of. Heb 4 is very clear God has set another day, TODAY, where as we accept the Gospel, we can have SABBATH on any day of the week.

I think Cliff is right with regard to the problem of applying Kuhn to this mix of science and theology. Religion has the option of fideism, for example, which is not open to science. Also, there are better models of how science works. Lakatos, I think, incorporates the insights of both Kuhn and Popper (among others) into a superior synthesis. There is a good introduction to Lakatos and a very interesting discussion of how the philosophy of science might apply to theology in Nancey Murphy's book "Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning."

Chris Plewright wrote:

". . .That instead of suggesting that God created it that way, rather that the effects of sin changed our world physically, so that thorns are now on roses, that sin allowed death, sin may have caused the appearance of age, and it changed our perception of the laws of nature. Therefore, if the scientific model, based on its naturalistic assumptions, can only see a long age, I don't think that has to falsify recent creation."

Are you seriously arguing that the sin of mankind was responsible for the development of many, many layers of rocks in the earth, bearing a great multiplicity of fossils?
Or maybe you are saying that our (sinful) observations of reality are so distorted they cannot be relied on.

In either case, God allows (causes?) either the evidence or our perception of it to be falsified.

Science grew up from the conception, traceable to Christian and Jewish thought, that the universe is coherent and obeys laws that were put in place by the Creator. The whole edifice of science and technology relies on this coherence. What you are saying is that no, it's not coherent, it is not what it looks like.

If that is so, we live in a never-never land in which we cannot believe anything we can see. Again, maybe the earth was created 5 minutes ago and we were all created with memories of things that never happened.

Don

I think it impossible to integrate the most influential forms of evolutionary thought to day and the most popular types*** of Christian belief in our time.

Either one or the other or both will have to yield a whole lot of precious conceptual territory in order to make this happen. I favor the option of explicit and intentional mutual concessions.

It is one thing to say that one still goes to church and prays with one's students. It is another to provide a coherent and compelling account of how God affects evolution and how evolution affects God, such that it is impossible to give an account of one without including the other.

Those on both sides who ask us at least to be frank about this are right, in my view.

***By "most popular" I do not mean "most Biblical" but the sort of thing one often hears in churches today, including SDA ones. These suggest that everything happens precisely as God wants. As long as we hang on to beliefs like that, integration strikes me as illusive.

Ron

Just close your eyes for several moments and consider a giant flood with wave after wave of global tsumamis, the bottom feeders and slow pokes are the first layer, followed by the slightly quicker on up the chain. If you have studied, you would know that petrified trees, some places, stand upright through layer after layer of solidied tsumani deposits--imagine that tree being petrified thousands of years apart for each of its hundreds of layers. Pine stumps in Georgia last less than a decade exposed to air, water, and bugs.

How did God capture all that wateer--ice--did you ever wonder why water expands when it freezes? Most things shrink when they get cold?

Imagine, also, the layers in reverse order--the flood was one big piece of chaos of eruptions, massive plate movements, mountain ranges etc. How much was pre creation and how much flood in forming the topography we will never know without special revelation. It took months for even the first olive leaf to appear.

Nobody, but nobody measures things by Ussher and nobody, but nobody should measure life against the age of the rocks. The chaos we see on earth should tell us that uniformitarianism is just plain nuts and the upward progression of life forms also. The data fits a flood hypothesis far better than a neo-Darwinian conjecture. If it didn't why so desperate to find that "missing link"? (links!!!)

The men of WWII were two or more sizes bigger than the men of WWI due to diet, sanitation, public health measures not micro evolution. Tom

Tom, I presume when you say "Ron" you meant "Don".

The fossil forests I have seen (north of Yellowstone) consist of 42+ layers formed by the mudflows and ash from successive volcanic eruptions, each of which killed the forest which had grown there on the previous eruption.

Those who have studied this carefully (see Ritland's "Ecological Zonation Theory", in "Creation Revisted", 2000, Association of Adventist Forums, pp 145-181) have concluded some 11,000 to 12,000 years is necessary for these layers to accumulate. Some have constructed theories that would float all these layers in but they are not very convincing.

As I understand it, this fossil forest occurs in the topmost layers of the geologic column, above the immense strata of limestone that underlies a large part of the United States. In the area where I live (Indiana) these limestones are hundreds of feet in depth, I believe they are around 600 feet deep in some western states, and in some places in China limestone are as much as 32,000 feet in thickness. I don't have the exact information at my fingertips, but believe me, there's a lot of limestone out there.

Considering that limestone is formed from the skeletons of small animals which drew calcium carbonate from the seas in which they lived, a large amount of time was necessary for the formation of this limestone.

Every day of my life I see this stuff lying about, crushed as gravel in my driveway, in the cuts of the highway near my house. If you look closely at it you can see the skeletons of chrinoids and brachiopods all cemented together to make the stone. All of this stuff was once alive, growing in a sea. It's not a deception, nor a misapprehension. It's there, and even though we may find it inconvenient theologically, we may as well get used to it.

Don

Tom, I see there is a Ron participating in this thread. Maybe you were addressing him, after all. My initial perusal did not see his name. Don

Don

I was addressing you not Ron Sorry. Interesting comments
but not relevant to the basic issue. Thanks though. Tom

Tom, I'm not just sure what is "relevant" in your mind. I tend to think that reality is always relevant. Those who deny it tend to become irrelevant. Don

I am a SDA parent of recent SDA college students. I expect SDA college professors to teach my children:
A. PRESENT TRUTH, not past or partial understandings of truth which may not be adequate for present information.
B. SUPPORT FOR THE WEEKLY SABBATH as a Memorial of Creation, not as a clone of creation, or a carbon copy of creation. (The religious value and function of a 7th day weekly Sabbath is untouched and untroubled in its homage to and worship of the Creator, irregardless of details such as if the 6 Great Creation Events took 144 solar hours, or 14.4 billion years.)
C. I want my children to learn to worship HIM that made Heavens and Earth, not to worship Moses or Bishop Usher's or Charles Darwin's or Ellen White's understanding of HOW He made Heavens and Earth.
D. I want them to be taught that along with the Freedom to explore Truth where ever it leads, comes the Responsibility to respect previous understandings, and see the value and educational benefit that previous partial or imcomplete understandings have had in the gradual revelation of Truth.
E. I want professors who will BEGIN at Genesis then move on to fuller and richer understanding of the Creation story, not administrators who demand we must END our understanding at Genesis. I want science professors who will Begin with Moses and Ellen White's understandings and insights, but not End with their comprehension of the God's means or methods revealed in the Book of Nature.

My Biblical mandate for this kind of progressive teaching is the Savior who took the limited and partial understanding of two students and their Old Testament limited ideas, and thoughtfully expanded them into a New Testament understanding of God's purposes and methods by "BEGINNING at Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said...." (Luke 24:27)

I want our SDA science professors to BEGIN in Genesis and to explain it, but not, please Jesus, not ever, ever to END in Genesis.

Begin there, let Mosea and Ellen White begin our understanding of Creation, but not to End our understanding of Creation. Revelation is a spring board, and a valued source of insight into the meaning of Creation. Revelation is not a rigid little box for limiting our study nor understanding of the facts of Creation as revealed by careful unbiased science.

So Brother's Paulson and Goldstein, here is what this
SDA member, believer, and parent wants from our SDA schools and our SDA teachers. The Truth. Present Truth. Not blind worship of past understandings.

I want a faculty where scientists can help reject careless and unwarranted assumptions of unbelieving scientists and theologians who can correcting and expanding unwarranted limits or errors in our previous understanding of the Bible.

Perhaps you need to set up another committee to rephrase existing guidelines if you wish to continue to represent us aright?

Theologians in the 3rd and 4th century were able to find a formula that would allow people to affirm two mutually exclusive beliefs, that Jesus was at the same time man and God and that God, incarnated in Jesus, could pray to God in Heaven. We need similarly gifted theologicans today, I fear, if we want to create a synthesis of Christian beliefs and evolution. Not that I believe it can be done (I say that with the caveat that I've not read many attempts at coming up with such a universal field theory. I've always been with Cliff on this one, albeit from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum.)

Cliff
I think I know the reason why people on this blog listen to Paulson. Theological "liberals" or "non-conservatives" are by nature not rable rousers and propagandists. Fundamentally they want to be assured that there is a place in the church for them too. That's why they like Paulson. These are people who remember Neil Wilson. That's also why they don't like you. It's not the theology, it's the inclusive tone.

Cliff,

Re: Kuhn and "The only problem, however, is that you're not dealing here with science only; you're dealing with revealed truth as well, so I'm not sure how his dynamic would play into this."

Revealed truth has to be interpreted, so we can speak of different paradigms of interpretation being better (having more explanatory power) than others.

This is precisely what is happening in the church with the debates about interpreting Genesis 1 and 2. Is a literal or literary interpretation more adequate to everything else we know?

Blake, As a graduate student contemplating the possibility of teaching at an Adventist institution of higher learning one day, I too find the tone and content of some of these comments absolutely terrifying!

Don,

You asked me, "Are you seriously arguing that the sin of mankind was responsible for the development of many, many layers of rocks in the earth, bearing a great multiplicity of fossils? Or maybe you are saying that our (sinful) observations of reality are so distorted they cannot be relied on. "

Yes, both, quite seriously. I am saying that there is a significant belief that there was no death before sin, I am posing it because it is used throughout the bible - not just Genesis. Sin also resulted in a worldwide cataclysm as well, a supernatural one that can not be falsified either (and this would mean not fully verifiable either) because of it's supernatural nature. I am saying it because it is a major pillar of belief for millions of believers.

I am suggesting that we need to be more careful about what we think we can achieve via science. The limited coherence that we think we see is our own arrogance when we think we can limit the supernatural, and is challenged by beliefs that people hold sacred, and these beliefs deserve some respect. Especially in this context of SDA institutions, I really think these beliefs should be respected.

I am not saying that there is no coherence at all. But belief in an omnipotent God demands the existence of different types of causality than we can understand. Also theoretical physics challenges this edifice of coherence to some extent.

Why would you argue that God is limited to coherence as we understand it, to limit God to the only science that us mere mortals have achieved, is to reject the possibility of 'creatio ex nihilo', and so many other spiritual truths. Why would we try and restrict God, and hence reality? This is the point of having the word 'supernatural' in a religious context - to explain that which is real, but beyond our understanding - beyond our current science and knowledge.

Also, the Bible does say that sin changed our nature, doesn't it? Doesn't this include physically, so that we can die? Doesn't this include thorns appearing on roses. Sin caused a physical supernatural change to the order of things. How do you pose to model that coherently, without understanding the type of causality involved?

If I limited my belief system to current scientific coherence, there would be no need for my religion! It would fall back to mere philosophy. I think to challenge the fundamental idea of supernatural at an SDA university to be an exercise only, and is is something that can not be verified, and is something that needs to be done with care and respect. And to suggest that time and space is exactly what we think it is, shows disrespect for how much more our science could possibly achieve as well.

To say that current science is the limit to what is possible, puts limits on both future science and God.

"but those who leave the Word of God, and seek to account for His created works upon scientific principles, are drifting without chart or compass upon an unknown ocean." Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 113

How do you interpret this phrase, written by one who us SDAs believe to be gifted with the Spirit of Prophecy? Am I misreading it?

You also said, "Science grew up from the conception, traceable to Christian and Jewish thought, that the universe is coherent and obeys laws that were put in place by the Creator. The whole edifice of science and technology relies on this coherence. What you are saying is that no, it's not coherent, it is not what it looks like.

If that is so, we live in a never-never land..."

Yes, I do agree that nature obeys laws. But I can question our mortal interpretation of those laws! So, your conclusion of never-never is provocative, but maybe further than necessary. I am saying that the Law Giver understands those laws better than we do, and He is the compass of those laws, He dictates the chart rather than our own human wisdom.

Aage,

Have you seen the model that I posed, that allows for the synthesis? I wonder what your thoughts are on it.

Chris,

I remind you that science has been very successful in providing explanations for what we observe. That is pretty good evidence of the coherence of God's universe, and of the ability he has given the human race to make sense of it.

It seems quite nonsensical to me to think that the sin of one or two persons caused a whole structure of geologic strata to appear.

Don

Zane

I don't think it is necessary to be terrified. What's the very worst the SDAism can do to a denominational employee?

Terminate his or her employement.

That falls short of being thrown into a lion's den, stoned, beheaded, sewn into a sack and thrown into an icy river or burnt alive.

Would it hurt? Yes! Would it destroy? Not unless one let's it.

Plus, no matter where one serves, there will be severe critics. That's life!

Dave

Dave,

Lol. A little perspective always helps! I guess "terrified" might not have been the best word...

It always amuses me when conservative fundamentalists tell the rest of us to get out of the church, that we are not welcome, that the church is better off without us. Then they go on to calmly assure us that there are many denominations that would accept us and our beliefs which don't quite line up to the status quo. "Oh, what's the big deal?" They say. "Just go find another church and fellowship with them! Have some INTEGRITY why don't you and get lost!"

As if they had not, for years, indoctrinated these very same ones to believe that if they leave the ark of safety they will recieve the mark of the beast and be rejected by Christ. As if they had not, for years, hammered into the brains of these same ones that to leave the church is to forfeit your salvation and mark yourself for the lake of fire. And then they have the audacity, the gall, the utter nerve to act as if leaving the church after being indentured into its belief system and culture for years and years is as simple and strightforward a process as taking off a coat. As if to do so would not be the equivalent of ripping away everything you have ever known for years, mentally scarred for life wondering if indeed Christ will spit you out of His mouth for leaving the Remnant church, sentenced to, from that point on, endure the pitiful looks 'those who stay with the ship' give you, doomed to walk the earth a damned soul who left the 'family'. Just like the Mafia, if you leave, you might as well sign your death warrant. Only in this case, it's the end of your salvation.

Give me a break. Enough of your stupid mind games right-wingers. I ain't buying it.

Nightdweller,

I have tendency to agree with you on that. That's one of the reasons I am exploring different ways of understanding what physically changed when we sinned - it could perhaps allow for the scientific model of evolution to appear correct, especially if the results of sin supernaturally changed us physically. I don't think the thief on the Cross had all of his intellectual theology as per the fundamentals of the SDA Church.

Inclusiveness is one of the reasons why I like the idea of this forum.

I tend to think that God's infinite wisdom is more inclusive than not.

But, I also think that some people need not be so insistent that the church needs to change this important belief in creation and the fall. I guess that's the need for middle ground.

PS. I'm not advocating that being in the church = being saved. I think you understand that.

Don,

No doubt. As an engineer and a scientist, I have a reliance on scientific coherence for my bread and butter. Also as an engineer, I learn to pick and choose which scientific model suits the problem at hand. Sometimes competing models - sometimes science is nonsensical all by itself, without the need for supernatural.

And so I don't rely on science for my eternal salvation. That is something different. For example, resurrection seems nonsensical. But it doesn't mean I can't believe in it!

And, I don't know why you said the following "It seems quite nonsensical to me to think that the sin of one or two persons caused a whole structure of geologic strata to appear"

I never rejected the possibility that the supernatural flood caused some of that, or that the results of sin may have occurred gradually over some time either, I never said it all had to be instant. But then again, it does seem nonsensical that eating fruit can cause us to die, doesn't it? That us eating fruit can cause thorns to appear! So, I think we don't have a framework to say what is and isn't sensible, without first throwing the whole belief system out a-priori.

If I gave up on everything that seems nonsensical, then I would have given up on God a long time ago. The value to me is not based on the immediate sense that it seems to lack, the value for me is far deeper than that.

William Blake & Zane:

As Dave Larson indicated, at least if one falls out of favor theologically for whatever stated reasons, even if trumped up and exaggerated, one is not physically executed. I felt that sense of relief in the aftermath of my personal trials and inquisitions, realizing that at least I wasn’t in the mafia where I could have been rubbed out by a hit man.

Yet, being involuntarily pushed out of the SDA nest, having to reluctantly walk away from one’s theological grounding and upbringing as an SDA is not that easy nor necessarily intentional. I must respectfully disagree with Dave that termination of denominational employment is the worst than can happen.

One must also be prepared for the accompanying over the top fallout. Like when AU Seminary dean Thomas Blinco desperately grabbed me by the shoulder while intoning most earnestly, “Don’t let Satan get a hold of you like that! Don’t let Satan get a hold of you!” His glazed eyes and rapid blinking underscored his words to infer that he was dealing directly with Satan himself! I realized that nothing I could say would disabuse him of his delusions. It was sobering and chilling that it had come to this. Really…

So, one must anticipate a possible or likely groundswell of the invoking of the insidious, whereby through whispering campaigns, various pious individuals and leaders will feel compelled as their religious duty to pointedly and directly link you as being in league with Satan, including spreading dire warnings of such to your spouse, relatives and other SDA acquaintances. I marvel that every now and then I’ll still run across someone who for decades believed I was worshipping Satan and the like! It would be laughable if it were not pathetic.

Yes, one faces critics in many situations in life. However, demonizing and character assassination is another thing and the culture of Adventism generally supports that level of shunning that ties you to Satan. Additionally, one’s personal network of SDA acquaintances can suddenly dry up as a consequence of the rumor mill running in overdrive.

Hopefully, that will not be your destiny. But, be prepared for a true sizing up of the costs that may accompany a loss of denominational employment due to matters of personal conscience. I weathered the storm, marriage intact. Others weren’t so fortunate.

Bruce

PS. Yes, Nightdweller, you are right on target!!

No doubt, we all remember Robert Folkenberg Sr.'s papal encyclical Total Commitment To God in 1996. A dark time indeed for liberal/progressive/evangelical SDA's.

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/other_documents/other_doc7.html

The proposal was described by Folkenberg as "effectively quality management, in the context of a spiritual agenda".

I also remember the sermon given in October at Andrews University where Folkenberg demanded that graduates "give evidence to indicate that they know Christ as their personal savior and Lord." In addition, he said, "any hint of skepticism with regard to our fundamental beliefs or our heritage is out of order."

Luckily, the idea of "proving" something as personal and intangible as one's faith was met with outspoken resistance in some quarters-particularly at Adventist colleges, which would have to submit a "spiritual master plan" for review by a panel approved by the church's highest governing body.

I well remember rejoicing at the response of some of the more sane, reasonable thought leaders in the church. Total Commitment To God had rightly sparked passionate opposition from some members who resented it as force-fed spirituality. Erv Taylor blasted the document as spirituality "by fiat" and Frank Knittel decried the thing as "a bizarre attempt to erect moral fences". The best, however, was then La Sierra President Lawrence Geraty: "This is not a day and age in which people respond to this. Our kids here, they'll say, 'Shove it.' They'll leave the church."

No doubt. Now, years later, the Lasierra haters are begging for something akin to that wretched document to be enforced across the board for our schools and, eventually, our churches as well.

Looks we came full circle and are repeating history, doesn't it?

Bruce and Nightdweller,

Thanks for the eye opening remarks.

"I also remember the sermon given in October at Andrews University where Folkenberg demanded that graduates "give evidence to indicate that they know Christ as their personal savior and Lord."

Did he really mean that the student would not receive graduation without it? I think as a personal challenge it might be OK - as pastors do from time to time, but what do you mean he demanded it? I'll have to read the paper.

"In addition, he said, "any hint of skepticism with regard to our fundamental beliefs or our heritage is out of order."

Here is where it gets vague. I think to say that religious beliefs are necessarily scientifically falsifiable, is rather unscientific, and dismisses belief in the supernatural.

Having said that, a university is a place where students should be allowed to question things. So, what constitutes "hint of skepticism", is normal university education.

In hindsight, and in light of what you have presented, some of my rhetoric may have sounded like that. I hope I was not misunderstood. It's only human and rational to have some level of skepticism. At the same time, at the end of the day, an Adventist university should be a place reaffirming peoples faith. Understanding that science is not at odds with religious faith should be understood, no?

Bruce

The way Elder Blincoe confronted you surprises and dismays me. I regret what took place.

Your more general point about the frequent social costs of losing denominational employment is also valid and important. For those of us who would not have even been conceived were it not for SDAism, these can be very high indeed.

Changing subjects a bit:

I recently discussed the issues surrounding LSU with one of its younger graduates. The question: "What are people going to think about my school if they Google 'La Sierra University' and read about these controversies?"

I did not have a good answer.

I think some have come too close to acting like the [perhaps apocryphal?] soldiers in the Viet Nam war who tried to liberate villages by burning them completely to the ground.

Because this rarely works, I think we should all try to cool the fires of conflict without compromising on our convictions.

Dave

this is a common ground between head-rolling and doing nothing, not a common ground between the two sides of the debate. Obviously Paulsen isn't going to condemn either side seeing as he is a career politician, but he does seem to support the Asschericks and Pittmans of Adventism that only want evolution taught as "the way it is out there in the professional world" and not as a possible explanation for earth's history.

Adventist institutions of higher education should continue to teach what they hold to be true from their research, study, and belief. When the GC, NAD, unions, conferences, or pastors seek to pressure these institutions then it does nothing but undermine the academic experience and create animosity between the parties that don't agree with each other. I go to La sierra and I can honestly say that I am a better Adventist, among other things, for attending it. I also think that if we "liberals" were speaking out against (in the same way that LSU has recently been spoken out against) what teachers at Southern, for example, were teaching we would be shouted down by numerous people and organizations for doing so. There is room for what LSU, Southern, and any other Adventist institution has to teach as long as they are being taught by thoughtful, qualified, caring professors.
-kyle

Just put your money in the basket, don't eat meat and show up on Sabbath. Is that so hard to understand? We'll find out all the rest later.

"I think we should all try to cool the fires of conflict without compromising on our convictions."

David, I appreciate your peacekeeping stance, but I don't find it realistic or practical. We in the church who do not kowtow to the conservative party line are under attack and I am not about to stand by and allow these individuals to run roughshod over my oplace in the church. What you are proposing is the equivalent of utilizing tactics of Ghandi agaginst the likes of Adolph Hitler. I, for one, am not going to roll over and die for any of these bullies.

Here, from the Educate Truth website, we have some choice words and hateful rhetoric from one of the most intolerant fundamentalist instigators we have in the church right now, Kevin Paulson. Can you believe this arrogance??:

"John McLarty’s unfortunate comments in this discussion represent a candid statement of the problem the church faces, not anything approaching a solution. For years John has edited a magazine whose consistent practice has been to attack the fundamental beliefs, lifestyle standards, settled policies, and elected leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Denial of our faith rules the pages of this publication, with little if any challenge permitted to balance the picutre–this despite its vaunted claim to “openness.” John seems not to understand that the church is not a debating society. Rather, it is a community of faith with doctrines and lifestyle principles which unite its spirit and define its mission to the world. This has been true of God’s covenant community since the beginning of time. The notion suggested by John and others that belief in the fundamentals of our faith is merely optional for those who choose to be the church’s employees or members, is utterly foreign to the Sacred Record, the writings of Inspiration, and the Church Manual. It is time for the game of pretense played by so-called “progressive” Adventists to come to an end. Every day such persons support themselves from God’s money as disbursed to them by God’s church, every day they take upon themselves the Seventh-day Adventist name, they are living a lie. It is time–long, long past time–for faithful pastors, leaders, and laity to rise up and cleanse the body of Christ of this cancer of disbelief."

http://www.educatetruth.com/evidence/john-mclarty-writes-letter-rebuking...

Really Paulson? I know your kind sir and I've got your number. You are not much different than the High School bully in the schoolyard who figures he owns the place and can throw his weight around unchallenged. I've got news for you-we progressives are in the church, we are legion and we are not going anywhere.

Deal with it.

Looking through that petition I see heavy signatures like Bernard Brandstater, Ken Hart, Robert Folkenberg (I don't know if it's Jr. or Sr.), Doug Batchelor, lots of ASI and ASI-related folk and a few recognisable pastors and the like. They are not only active and committed Seventh-day Adventists, some are long time Adventist Forum contributors and supporters. I think it's important for La Sierra to clarify what is and isn't being taught because the spin is that LSU teachers deny the creation event and/or God's creative act.

Thinking broadly, there are many Christians, from fundy literalists to all-out evolutionists, that hold that their view has God as creator of life and instigator of the creation event. I have a hard time imagining that LSU has professors that deny God as creator and posit that our existence is mere chance. Even considering this diversity of thought on origins within Christianity there is much trouble with some of the more extreme positions IMHO (in my honest opinion). Agreeing with Dave Larson, with some modification and without some qualifications, I think it impossible to integrate many and/or most forms of evolutionary thought today with a Christianity that defers to scripture as normative and standard.

Obviously the Wisby statement didn't suffice... I think it's time for La Sierra to clarify further what is going on. The presence of some who are clearly engaging in what the PUC president called a witch hunt doesn't excuse LSU folk from speaking to the concerns of their constituency... especially when their answer would IMHO quell much of this complaint.

Here they are: The Fundamental Beliefs! find some middle ground in:

1. The Bible as their only creed.

2. The Trustworthy record of God's acts in history.

3. He is worthy of worship.....by the whole of creation.

4. God, the Father is the Creator.

5. The Son: Through Him all things were created.

6. Creation (please ponder each word of that statment)

7. The Fall of Adam and Eve and the consequences.

8. The Great Conflict between tne Eternal God and a created being.

9. The Sabbath.

Three questions: 1. Where is the middle ground? 2. Why would anyone who believed in evolution micro or macro want to claim to be a Seventh-day Adventist? 3. Why would such a one want to teach in a college or university that holds these beliefs as fundamental.

It would seem that self respect alone would prevent such a
fraud. And this is the place to prepare a final perfect people? Tom

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.

1. Holy Scriptures:
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)

2. Trinity:
There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)

3. Father:
God the eternal Father is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation. He is just and holy, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. The qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and the Holy Spirit are also revelations of the Father. (Gen. 1:1; Rev. 4:11; 1 Cor. 15:28; John 3:16; 1 John 4:8; 1 Tim. 1:17; Ex. 34:6, 7; John 14:9.)

4. Son:
God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God's power and was attested as God's promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things. (John 1:1-3, 14; Col. 1:15-19; John 10:30; 14:9; Rom. 6:23; 2 Cor. 5:17-19; John 5:22; Luke 1:35; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:9-18; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; Heb. 8:1, 2; John 14:1-3.)

5. Holy Spirit:
God the eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation, incarnation, and redemption. He inspired the writers of Scripture. He filled Christ's life with power. He draws and convicts human beings; and those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of God. Sent by the Father and the Son to be always with His children, He extends spiritual gifts to the church, empowers it to bear witness to Christ, and in harmony with the Scriptures leads it into all truth. (Gen. 1:1, 2; Luke 1:35; 4:18; Acts 10:38; 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:11, 12; Acts 1:8; John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:7-13.)

6. Creation:
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.)

7. Nature of Man:
Man and woman were made in the image of God with individuality, the power and freedom to think and to do. Though created free beings, each is an indivisible unity of body, mind, and spirit, dependent upon God for life and breath and all else. When our first parents disobeyed God, they denied their dependence upon Him and fell from their high position under God. The image of God in them was marred and they became subject to death. Their descendants share this fallen nature and its consequences. They are born with weaknesses and tendencies to evil. But God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself and by His Spirit restores in penitent mortals the image of their Maker. Created for the glory of God, they are called to love Him and one another, and to care for their environment. (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:7; Ps. 8:4-8; Acts 17:24-28; Gen. 3; Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12-17; 2 Cor. 5:19, 20; Ps. 51:10; 1 John 4:7, 8, 11, 20; Gen. 2:15.)

8. Great Controversy:
All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God's adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the worldwide flood. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated. To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation. (Rev. 12:4-9; Isa. 14:12-14; Eze. 28:12-18; Gen. 3; Rom. 1:19-32; 5:12-21; 8:19-22; Gen. 6-8; 2 Peter 3:6; 1 Cor. 4:9; Heb. 1:14.)

9. Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ:
In Christ's life of perfect obedience to God's will, His suffering, death, and resurrection, God provided the only means of atonement for human sin, so that those who by faith accept this atonement may have eternal life, and the whole creation may better understand the infinite and holy love of the Creator. This perfect atonement vindicates the righteousness of God's law and the graciousness of His character; for it both condemns our sin and provides for our forgiveness. The death of Christ is substitutionary and expiatory, reconciling and transforming. The resurrection of Christ proclaims God's triumph over the forces of evil, and for those who accept the atonement assures their final victory over sin and death. It declares the Lordship of Jesus Christ, before whom every knee in heaven and on earth will bow. (John 3:16; Isa. 53; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4, 20-22; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15, 19-21; Rom. 1:4; 3:25; 4:25; 8:3, 4; 1 John 2:2; 4:10; Col. 2:15; Phil. 2:6-11.)

10. Experience of Salvation:
In infinite love and mercy God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that in Him we might be made the righteousness of God. Led by the Holy Spirit we sense our need, acknowledge our sinfulness, repent of our transgressions, and exercise faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ, as Substitute and Example. This faith which receives salvation comes through the divine power of the Word and is the gift of God's grace. Through Christ we are justified, adopted as God's sons and daughters, and delivered from the lordship of sin. Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God's law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life. Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment. (2 Cor. 5:17-21; John 3:16; Gal. 1:4; 4:4-7; Titus 3:3-7; John 16:8; Gal. 3:13, 14; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; Rom. 10:17; Luke 17:5; Mark 9:23, 24; Eph. 2:5-10; Rom. 3:21-26; Col. 1:13, 14; Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 3:26; John 3:3-8; 1 Peter 1:23; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 8:7-12; Eze. 36:25-27; 2 Peter 1:3, 4; Rom. 8:1-4; 5:6-10.)

11. Growing in Christ:
By His death on the cross Jesus triumphed over the forces of evil. He who subjugated the demonic spirits during His earthly ministry has broken their power and made certain their ultimate doom. Jesus' victory gives us victory over the evil forces that still seek to control us, as we walk with Him in peace, joy, and assurance of His love. Now the Holy Spirit dwells within us and empowers us. Continually committed to Jesus as our Saviour and Lord, we are set free from the burden of our past deeds. No longer do we live in the darkness, fear of evil powers, ignorance, and meaninglessness of our former way of life. In this new freedom in Jesus, we are called to grow into the likeness of His character, communing with Him daily in prayer, feeding on His Word, meditating on it and on His providence, singing His praises, gathering together for worship, and participating in the mission of the Church. As we give ourselves in loving service to those around us and in witnessing to His salvation, His constant presence with us through the Spirit transforms every moment and every task into a spiritual experience. (Ps 1:1, 2; 23:4; 77:11, 12; Col 1:13, 14; 2:6, 14, 15; Luke 10:17-20; Eph 5:19, 20; 6:12-18; 1 Thess 5:23; 2 Peter 2:9; 3:18; 2 Cor. 3:17, 18; Phil 3:7-14; 1 Thess 5:16-18; Matt 20:25-28; John 20:21; Gal 5:22-25; Rom 8:38, 39; 1 John 4:4; Heb 10:25.)

12. Church:
The church is the community of believers who confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. In continuity with the people of God in Old Testament times, we are called out from the world; and we join together for worship, for fellowship, for instruction in the Word, for the celebration of the Lord's Supper, for service to all mankind, and for the worldwide proclamation of the gospel. The church derives its authority from Christ, who is the incarnate Word, and from the Scriptures, which are the written Word. The church is God's family; adopted by Him as children, its members live on the basis of the new covenant. The church is the body of Christ, a community of faith of which Christ Himself is the Head. The church is the bride for whom Christ died that He might sanctify and cleanse her. At His return in triumph, He will present her to Himself a glorious church, the faithful of all the ages, the purchase of His blood, not having spot or wrinkle, but holy and without blemish. (Gen. 12:3; Acts 7:38; Eph. 4:11-15; 3:8-11; Matt. 28:19, 20; 16:13-20; 18:18; Eph. 2:19-22; 1:22, 23; 5:23-27; Col. 1:17, 18.)
13. Remnant and Its Mission:
The universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ, but in the last days, a time of widespread apostasy, a remnant has been called out to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. This remnant announces the arrival of the judgment hour, proclaims salvation through Christ, and heralds the approach of His second advent. This proclamation is symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14; it coincides with the work of judgment in heaven and results in a work of repentance and reform on earth. Every believer is called to have a personal part in this worldwide witness. (Rev. 12:17; 14:6-12; 18:1-4; 2 Cor. 5:10; Jude 3, 14; 1 Peter 1:16-19; 2 Peter 3:10-14; Rev. 21:1-14.)

14. Unity in the Body of Christ:
The church is one body with many members, called from every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. In Christ we are a new creation; distinctions of race, culture, learning, and nationality, and differences between high and low, rich and poor, male and female, must not be divisive among us. We are all equal in Christ, who by one Spirit has bonded us into one fellowship with Him and with one another; we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation. Through the revelation of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures we share the same faith and hope, and reach out in one witness to all. This unity has its source in the oneness of the triune God, who has adopted us as His children. (Rom. 12:4, 5; 1 Cor. 12:12-14; Matt. 28:19, 20; Ps. 133:1; 2 Cor. 5:16, 17; Acts 17:26, 27; Gal. 3:27, 29; Col. 3:10-15; Eph. 4:14-16; 4:1-6; John 17:20-23.)

15. Baptism:
By baptism we confess our faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and testify of our death to sin and of our purpose to walk in newness of life. Thus we acknowledge Christ as Lord and Saviour, become His people, and are received as members by His church. Baptism is a symbol of our union with Christ, the forgiveness of our sins, and our reception of the Holy Spirit. It is by immersion in water and is contingent on an affirmation of faith in Jesus and evidence of repentance of sin. It follows instruction in the Holy Scriptures and acceptance of their teachings. (Rom. 6:1-6; Col. 2:12, 13; Acts 16:30-33; 22:16; 2:38; Matt. 28:19, 20.)

16. Lord's Supper:
The Lord's Supper is a participation in the emblems of the body and blood of Jesus as an expression of faith in Him, our Lord and Saviour. In this experience of communion Christ is present to meet and strengthen His people. As we partake, we joyfully proclaim the Lord's death until He comes again. Preparation for the Supper includes self-examination, repentance, and confession. The Master ordained the service of foot washing to signify renewed cleansing, to express a willingness to serve one another in Christlike humility, and to unite our hearts in love. The communion service is open to all believing Christians. (1 Cor. 10:16, 17; 11:23-30; Matt. 26:17-30; Rev. 3:20; John 6:48-63; 13:1-17.)

17. Spiritual Gifts and Ministries:
God bestows upon all members of His church in every age spiritual gifts which each member is to employ in loving ministry for the common good of the church and of humanity. Given by the agency of the Holy Spirit, who apportions to each member as He wills, the gifts provide all abilities and ministries needed by the church to fulfill its divinely ordained functions. According to the Scriptures, these gifts include such ministries as faith, healing, prophecy, proclamation, teaching, administration, reconciliation, compassion, and self-sacrificing service and charity for the help and encouragement of people. Some members are called of God and endowed by the Spirit for functions recognized by the church in pastoral, evangelistic, apostolic, and teaching ministries particularly needed to equip the members for service, to build up the church to spiritual maturity, and to foster unity of the faith and knowledge of God. When members employ these spiritual gifts as faithful stewards of God's varied grace, the church is protected from the destructive influence of false doctrine, grows with a growth that is from God, and is built up in faith and love. (Rom. 12:4-8; 1 Cor. 12:9-11, 27, 28; Eph. 4:8, 11-16; Acts 6:1-7; 1 Tim. 3:1-13; 1 Peter 4:10, 11.)

18. The Gift of Prophecy:
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)

19. Law of God:
The great principles of God's law are embodied in the Ten Commandments and exemplified in the life of Christ. They express God's love, will, and purposes concerning human conduct and relationships and are binding upon all people in every age. These precepts are the basis of God's covenant with His people and the standard in God's judgment. Through the agency of the Holy Spirit they point out sin and awaken a sense of need for a Saviour. Salvation is all of grace and not of works, but its fruitage is obedience to the Commandments. This obedience develops Christian character and results in a sense of well-being. It is an evidence of our love for the Lord and our concern for our fellow men. The obedience of faith demonstrates the power of Christ to transform lives, and therefore strengthens Christian witness. (Ex. 20:1-17; Ps. 40:7, 8; Matt. 22:36-40; Deut. 28:1-14; Matt. 5:17-20; Heb. 8:8-10; John 15:7-10; Eph. 2:8-10; 1 John 5:3; Rom. 8:3, 4; Ps. 19:7-14.)

20. Sabbath:
The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God's kingdom. The Sabbath is God's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God's creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Luke 4:16; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Matt. 12:1-12; Ex. 31:13-17; Eze. 20:12, 20; Deut. 5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32.)

21. Stewardship:
We are God's stewards, entrusted by Him with time and opportunities, abilities and possessions, and the blessings of the earth and its resources. We are responsible to Him for their proper use. We acknowledge God's ownership by faithful service to Him and our fellow men, and by returning tithes and giving offerings for the proclamation of His gospel and the support and growth of His church. Stewardship is a privilege given to us by God for nurture in love and the victory over selfishness and covetousness. The steward rejoices in the blessings that come to others as a result of his faithfulness. (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:15; 1 Chron. 29:14; Haggai 1:3-11; Mal. 3:8-12; 1 Cor. 9:9-14; Matt. 23:23; 2 Cor. 8:1-15; Rom. 15:26, 27.)

22. Christian Behavior:
We are called to be a godly people who think, feel, and act in harmony with the principles of heaven. For the Spirit to recreate in us the character of our Lord we involve ourselves only in those things which will produce Christlike purity, health, and joy in our lives. This means that our amusement and entertainment should meet the highest standards of Christian taste and beauty. While recognizing cultural differences, our dress is to be simple, modest, and neat, befitting those whose true beauty does not consist of outward adornment but in the imperishable ornament of a gentle and quiet spirit. It also means that because our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, we are to care for them intelligently. Along with adequate exercise and rest, we are to adopt the most healthful diet possible and abstain from the unclean foods identified in the Scriptures. Since alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and the irresponsible use of drugs and narcotics are harmful to our bodies, we are to abstain from them as well. Instead, we are to engage in whatever brings our thoughts and bodies into the discipline of Christ, who desires our wholesomeness, joy, and goodness. (Rom. 12:1, 2; 1 John 2:6; Eph. 5:1-21; Phil. 4:8; 2 Cor. 10:5; 6:14-7:1; 1 Peter 3:1-4; 1 Cor. 6:19, 20; 10:31; Lev. 11:1-47; 3 John 2.)

23. Marriage and the Family:
Marriage was divinely established in Eden and affirmed by Jesus to be a lifelong union between a man and a woman in loving companionship. For the Christian a marriage commitment is to God as well as to the spouse, and should be entered into only between partners who share a common faith. Mutual love, honor, respect, and responsibility are the fabric of this relationship, which is to reflect the love, sanctity, closeness, and permanence of the relationship between Christ and His church. Regarding divorce, Jesus taught that the person who divorces a spouse, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery. Although some family relationships may fall short of the ideal, marriage partners who fully commit themselves to each other in Christ may achieve loving unity through the guidance of the Spirit and the nurture of the church. God blesses the family and intends that its members shall assist each other toward complete maturity. Parents are to bring up their children to love and obey the Lord. By their example and their words they are to teach them that Christ is a loving disciplinarian, ever tender and caring, who wants them to become members of His body, the family of God. Increasing family closeness is one of the earmarks of the final gospel message. (Gen. 2:18-25; Matt. 19:3-9; John 2:1-11; 2 Cor. 6:14; Eph. 5:21-33; Matt. 5:31, 32; Mark 10:11, 12; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor. 7:10, 11; Ex. 20:12; Eph. 6:1-4; Deut. 6:5-9; Prov. 22:6; Mal. 4:5, 6.)

24. Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary:
There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent. (Heb. 8:1-5; 4:14-16; 9:11-28; 10:19-22; 1:3; 2:16, 17; Dan. 7:9-27; 8:13, 14; 9:24-27; Num. 14:34; Eze. 4:6; Lev. 16; Rev. 14:6, 7; 20:12; 14:12; 22:12.)

25. Second Coming of Christ:
The second coming of Christ is the blessed hope of the church, the grand climax of the gospel. The Saviour's coming will be literal, personal, visible, and worldwide. When He returns, the righteous dead will be resurrected, and together with the righteous living will be glorified and taken to heaven, but the unrighteous will die. The almost complete fulfillment of most lines of prophecy, together with the present condition of the world, indicates that Christ's coming is imminent. The time of that event has not been revealed, and we are therefore exhorted to be ready at all times. (Titus 2:13; Heb. 9:28; John 14:1-3; Acts 1:9-11; Matt. 24:14; Rev. 1:7; Matt. 24:43, 44; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; 1 Cor. 15:51-54; 2 Thess. 1:7-10; 2:8; Rev. 14:14-20; 19:11-21; Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 21; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; 1 Thess. 5:1-6.)

26. Death and Resurrection:
The wages of sin is death. But God, who alone is immortal, will grant eternal life to His redeemed. Until that day death is an unconscious state for all people. When Christ, who is our life, appears, the resurrected righteous and the living righteous will be glorified and caught up to meet their Lord. The second resurrection, the resurrection of the unrighteous, will take place a thousand years later. (Rom. 6:23; 1 Tim. 6:15, 16; Eccl. 9:5, 6; Ps. 146:3, 4; John 11:11-14; Col. 3:4; 1 Cor. 15:51-54; 1 Thess. 4:13-17; John 5:28, 29; Rev. 20:1-10.)

27. Millennium and the End of Sin:
The millennium is the thousand-year reign of Christ with His saints in heaven between the first and second resurrections. During this time the wicked dead will be judged; the earth will be utterly desolate, without living human inhabitants, but occupied by Satan and his angels. At its close Christ with His saints and the Holy City will descend from heaven to earth. The unrighteous dead will then be resurrected, and with Satan and his angels will surround the city; but fire from God will consume them and cleanse the earth. The universe will thus be freed of sin and sinners forever. (Rev. 20; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3; Jer. 4:23-26; Rev. 21:1-5; Mal. 4:1; Eze. 28:18, 19.)

28. New Earth:
On the new earth, in which righteousness dwells, God will provide an eternal home for the redeemed and a perfect environment for everlasting life, love, joy, and learning in His presence. For here God Himself will dwell with His people, and suffering and death will have passed away. The great controversy will be ended, and sin will be no more. All things, animate and inanimate, will declare that God is love; and He shall reign forever. Amen. (2 Peter 3:13; Isa. 35; 65:17-25; Matt. 5:5; Rev. 21:1-7; 22:1-5; 11:15.)

Copyright © 2009, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists ®

www.adventist.org

Chris, you said

"And, I don't know why you said the following 'It seems quite nonsensical to me to think that the sin of one or two persons caused a whole structure of geologic strata to appear.'"

Here is the explanation: this is exactly what you are saying when you claim that the appearance of great age in the strata of the earth does not mean what it clearly means, on the grounds that sin has messed up either the physical evidence or our perceptions of it.

We use Newtonian mechanics to reliably insert satellites into orbit. In electrical theory we use ohms and volts and amperes and phase angles, and their interactions, to achieve predicted results. These things are rationally understandable. Why should it be any different in earth science?

Why would the Creator take the trouble to create all these structures that do not tell us the truth? Is he being vindictive--visiting the iniqulities of Adam and Eve not only on the third and fourth generations but for all time on people trying to figure things out?

What possible salvific purpose could such an elaborate hoax on God's part have? You will doubtless remind me that his ways are past finding out and we cannot know his mind.

Yes, it is a logical possibility that nothing means anything. But I believe that the creation, and the evidence in it, does make sense and can be understood.

Don

I have been following the Evolution v Creation debate for some time now and what saddens me most is the assumption by many who hold to a literal 6 day creation, that those of us who accept the possibility that creation may have happened in a different manner somehow deny or diminish the creatorship of God. For me, and those in the SDA Church that I know who accept the possibility of evolution, nothing could be further from the truth.

For far the larger part of my life I accepted without question the Genesis account of creation and it is only when I began to research the mater, (ironically in order to prove to my son-in-law the fallacy of evolution) that I for the first time honestly confronted the data. The more I researched the mater the clearer it became to me that there was very good evidence for both deep time and for life having existed on this earth for a very long time.

This discovery lead to a great deal of uncertainty and I can readily understand the dangers that a discovery such as this presents to ones faith. I won’t bore you with my journey through these questions; suffice to say that the end result for me has been the recognition of a Creator far more wonderful than I had ever imagined, and an understanding of a Saviour willing to sacrifice far more than I can begin to understand.

In accepting the above mentioned evidence for a very long history of life on this earth I have discovered a Creator that not only created this world, but one who created the entire universe from nothing! A Creator able to speak into existence an entire universe from a nothingness so unimaginable that not even the nothingness of empty space existed!

In accepting this I have come to understand the amazing sacrifice of Christ in an entirely new light. I now marvel at a God greater than the entire universe, a God beyond both space and time, a God who did not merely relocate from one planet within our universe to another, much like an immigrant from one country to another, but a God greater than the universe Who was willing to come and live on this insignificant spec within that universe, so that I can spend eternity with Him.

I am well aware of the challenges that acceptance that creation may not have happened in strict accordance with the Genesis account poses to other aspects of ones theology and do not claim to have all the answers. I do however strongly believe that God would not set out to deceive those who honestly investigate the evidence and so, at present, have no alternative but to accept that the way God chose to create may not have been in strict accordance with the Genesis account.

I understand that many of the concepts that I have alluded to are difficult to understand and do not expect everyone to have the same understanding of God that I have. I accept and understand that my understanding is at least as imperfect as anyone else’s and that it will take eternity for me to fully understand. All that I ask is that those who hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis accept that in my accepting that God may have created in a different manner to the Genesis account, I am in no way diminishing the creatorship of God.

Kyle,

""the way it is out there in the professional world" and not as a possible explanation for earth's history"

But that is exactly what it is. The model "out there" of evolution is a possible explanation. People are not upset about that. People are upset because they think it is taught in a way that falsifies creation. But even if it was scientifically correct, it can not falsify creation. It doesn't mean that's the end of the story.

Tom,

What about a class on comparative religions? Certainly some of the mainstream religions would be taught. Islam and Buddhism would be taught. If they can be taught, there is at least some middle ground for evolution to be taught in a science class.

I believe in recent creation, and I have no problem with evolution being taught as a scientific model. It is possible to maintain recent creation and allow evolution to be a scientifically correct model. The axioms and assumptions of the model are taken on faith - I think it is important to point that out. I could go further, even if evolution is actually correct, and we did evolve from monkeys, then I could say that is because creation was changed supernaturally (apparently retrospectively) due to us having sinned. And this way, I don't have to lose any of the pillars of my faith.

So this would mean that millions of years of evolution of man did not occur before man sinned, until after he sinned thousands of years ago, then those millions of years of evolution appeared to be attributed to us. That type of logic maybe sounds crazy. But, if sin caused physical change to us in time and space, who knows what really happened? Who knows what types of causality and sequence changed our nature when we sinned.

Maybe this causes too much confusion, and people won't accept the possibility of this, because it is too outside the box of causality that we are entrenched in. That is the single biggest problem with the model that I have been posing. Either way, the problem is that people think that the scientific model of evolution some how invalidates the religious belief of creation.

People on both sides need to realise that it can't. It can't because of the limits of science do not limit the supernatural. And because it can't, there should be no conflict. People keep insisting that there is a conflict there. I am not convinced that there must be a conflict.

Chris, you write

"That type of logic maybe sounds crazy."

Yes, it does, because it is.

Don

Don,

I think you misunderstand what I am trying to say. I accept the scientific model of evolution may look correct to some people. And if it looks correct, so be it. But, do you realise, that even if it is correct, then it does not have to falsify creation. I have recently been posing a model that alows evolution to be correct, and the religious belief of recent creation does not need to be falsified. Likewise, in this model, belief in creation does not have to mean that evolution is wrong either.

The model puts them in different ball parks. More so than I think you realise I have been saying.

Just for the record, do you believe in evolution? I have found that evolutionists tend to understand my model more readily than recent creationists.

Unfortunately, people from both sides are entrenched in the paradigm that the models must falsify eachother, that they are mutually exclusive. Well they are not necessarily mutually exclusive - as my model shows. So, God is not lying to anyone in my model, rather the limit is us only being able to see part of the truth, and the part that we can see is not necessarily false either - so no lying involved! I don't have a problem if evolution is scientifically correct.

Let me give you analogy, people used to think it mutually exclusive that Jesus was both human and God. Yet today, we accept that both are completely true at the same time. I believe that this could be done with evolution and creation, if we thought that worthwhile. It does take some thinking outside the box though, with respect to sequence and causality, and how fundamentally and deeply sin effected us physically.

It's just a hypothetical that I have been thinking about for a couple of weeks, and I would be interested in some feedback.

Don,

"That type of logic maybe sounds crazy." Yes, it does, because it is.

OK. You don't think it is worth trying to bridge the gap here a little?

Chris

Yes of course, just so the object isn't to find a middle ground! That was my point. The 28 Fundamental Beliefs don't allow for wiggle room. That was tested: remember? Tom

I know what I believe, I have taught my children and sent them to school with a critical mind and the capacity to use it.

They don't believe in all 28, they don't believe in neo-darwinism, They Do believe in Redeemption through Jesus Christ. They do believe they are their brother's brother. They do believe that learning required careful critcal reading and listening.

They respect the law, their country, and the right to freedom of speech and assembly. They don't junp to conclusions on the basis or headlines, talking heads, or ecclisastical authority.

I am quite proud of them. Tom

Don,

"Why would the Creator take the trouble to create all these structures that do not tell us the truth? Is he being vindictive"

Here you are being unfair, and/or not listening to me or understanding me. I said that it is possibly the result of sin, and you are still arguing that God did it that way. You completely ignored the possibility, which is clearly indicated in the Bible.

I'm a creationist, trying to listen and be accomodating. I am sorry if that seems crazy to you.

The problem that I see is a lack of accountability that allows people representing both extremes an equal voice. Adventism in general and Spectrum in particular do not function as a communtiy of faith.

On the one hand you have [conservative] individuals taking theological positions which can not be supported by sound methods of Scriptural interptetation. On the other hand you have [liberal] people rejecting the inspiration and authority of Scripture.

Considering the SDA emphasis on education and its BRI, it is unfortunate that the church has not taken a strong position to reject perfectionistic and legalistic approaches to salvation.

It may be that to do that would undermine what growth there is in the church t/t evangelism. It's my impression that the legalistic, perfectionistic crowd are the ones most interested in sharing the "gospel" as they understand it.

The liberal, cultural, progressive Adventist tribe, what concern do they have for the salvation of others? It's difficult for me to understand how they can even take salvation seriously, based on their avowed dismissal of the supernatural events recorded in Scripture. Those who reject Creation, the Flood, and the Exodus, for example, how can they possibly believe in the Virgin birth of Christ, his atoning sacrifice or his resurrection from the dead?

The path they walk leads to observations such as the "body of Jesus was devoured by dogs." That is where "scholarly" criticism takes some of its adherents. There is little regard to the spirituality or redemptive nature of Scripture; consequently, there is no mission or burden for the lost.

It makes little sense for someone like Doug Bathchelor to bring people into a church fellowship which is going to undermine everything, or the most important things , his teachings emphasized.

In that sense, it would be better for Adventism to split than to have its new converts savaged upon entry into the church "family."

Christian faith is a wonderful thing that should be protected and nurtured by those in the church. Since Adventism and Spectrum embrace those who have no faith, in some respects, both work contrary to the redemptive mission of Christ.

Tom,

It seems to me that my generation is going to have a tougher time of it! Then again, I don't know all that your generation went through with Darwinism. Does it seem more everywhere these days to you, or has it come and gone in fads? I can't imagine that Darwinism was this entrenched in the church a few decades ago?

Thanks.

Courtenay,

I for one praise God that we can both worship the Creator, even if we understand it differently.

"I asked the meaning of the shaking I had seen and was shown that it would be caused by the straight testimony. They will rise up against it, and this will cause a shaking among God's people."

"God will arouse His people; if other means fail, heresies will come in among them, which will sift them, separating the chaff from the wheat."

"Standard after standard was left to trail in the dust as company after company from the Lord's army joined the foe and tribe after tribe from the ranks of the enemy united with the commandment-keeping people of God."

Tribe after tribe is now coming into the wonderful, precious 28 doctrines of the SDA church. Praise God, I am one! Better late than never . . .

Jody ;)

"No doubt, we all remember Robert Folkenberg Sr.'s papal encyclical Total Commitment To God in 1996. A dark time indeed for liberal/progressive/evangelical SDA's.

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/other_documents/other_doc7.html "

Thanks for this reference, Nightdweller. I somehow missed this at the time--probably because I was just discovering the Internets, wasn't at an SDA college, and didn't live near any SDA cultural centers.

Chris,

It seems to me what you are trying for is a variant on the idea that science and religion occupy two separate realms, address themselves to different questions, and have different purposes. There is something to this, I think.

It is fine to believe whatever one wants to about creation so long as creation is kept safely in that "other realm". But believing in a recent special creation is not only a religious statement, but it also makes scientific claims. There's the rub. If the two could be kept apart, but as long as special creation makes the claims it does, you got a problem.

You are seeking, it seems to me, to have it both ways by some sort of time-travel argument. The literal six day creation happens, but then man sins, which causes millions of years of evolution to occur, creating all the earth's strata. Well, time is a mysterious subject, to be sure, and I suppose you could be right if God is the holder and source of all mysteries, but the odds are agin it. It seems to me like an appeal to a miracle.

Remember that wonderful cartoon with the two professors covering the blackboard with scrawled equations and at one point the sequence contains the words "Then a miracle occurs". One of the professors says to the other "I think you need to be more explicit here in step two."

http://www.webamused.com/blogosophy/archives/002064.html

Well, maybe a miracle of the kind you postulate did occur. Yes, Jesus performed miracles. There are still miracles.

But in the scientific pursuit, it is not useful to invoke miracles. If you want to find out how the earth and life developed, you look at the evidence and trust that reality is coherent enough that you can figure out what happened.

The evolutionary model works: it finds us coal and gas and explains earthquakes and enables understanding of antibiotic resistant bacteria and new forms of the flu. Yes, I believe in evolution--we can see it working. I am not so sure that it produced life without divine intervention, or produced (unaided) all the structures in the biological world that seem so obviously "designed".

Sir John Polkinghorne is one of the world's foremost exponents of "the friendship between science and religion". He describes creation in terms of the big bang--God is the first cause of the big bang in which all the basic laws were set which gave the universe the capacity to "produce both saints and mathematicians".

He is reluctant to admit that God might have, from time to time, tinkered with the process rather than allowed it to proceed on its own. (I know, I asked him.) I think it is very difficult, and possibly not even a scientific question, to determine if or when there was special creation or intervention in the evolutionary process.

What I see is that the creation is seriously defective-- human beings are sinful (sin being a category that applies only to humanity, non-self-conscious creatures cannot sin).

Once humanity arrived on the scene, something needed to be done about this. Creation was incomplete. In Jesus Christ the creation was somehow completed--there was victory over death, there was a transcendence beyond the merely animal nature, humanity became spiritual. Yes, there are references in the OT to the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit as an entity comes clearly into view only after the resurrection.

So, as a believer in evolution, and a rather far-distant initial creation, I am also a believer in Jesus Christ. I happily recite the Nicean Creed, including the part about "one holy catholic church" to which we all (I trust) happily belong.

I believe that Jesus' teaching is the most sensible, psychologically perceptive teaching there is. I am especially fond of his saying "Whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it." Jesus was spot on: happiness comes from living outside ourselves.

To me, the most beautiful words in the language are "through our Lord Jesus Christ". The Psalms sung in Anglican chant move me immensely. I am a lover of God's ways and people and churches and their music and their words.

I have great affection for that sadly defective institution called the Seventh-day Adventist Church, for it is where I came to know Jesus Christ and most of my dearest friends, among whom is my sweet wife of 51 years. I have given many good years of my life to its service. I wish it would change in several ways, but as long as the fundamentalists have a stranglehold on it I don't see that happening, so I remain an outlier, something of a dissenter, which is sometimes uncomfortable, but I have gotten used to it.

Well, I have sinned here at much greater length than I intended.

Recapitulating, as I look this over, and look over your most recent post, it seems to me that you are really keeping a short-chronology creation story in your belief system by performing a mental trick to separate it from physical reality. You made a speculation about time, which I think is untenable, but where you are trying to go is to "spiritualize" the creation story and keep it safely in the non-physical realm.

Something happened 6 or 8K years ago that in effect constituted a creation--maybe a divine intervention that did not affect the physical universe, but was nonetheless "real". I cannot be so hard on you if that is what you are trying to do.

Don

None of these arguments would even be occurring if the church had not accepted, literally, that the Bible is the sole source of information on everything.

No other ancient book of that era has been so abused and used as a trusted document. And while it contains all sorts of miraculous events, just as does the contemporary literature, none of which is ever confused with being literal and factual, but because it is the Hebrew's story of their origins, it is swallowed lock, stock and barrel as the absolutely only truthful story of how mankind and his world began.

Why does no one question the authenticity of the Genesis stories? Who was there to observe? Why is there no doubt whatsoever that throughout several millennia (if one accepts Ussher) that nothing was added or embellished? That the early ancestors (Semites, not Hebrews) believed in angels or non-earthly being mated with humans; that the reason for their toil was because of "sin" and that otherwise, life would be a glorious picnic because the first female dared to eat fruit from a forbidden tree? Does anyone not realize that this is a variation of Pandora's jar, and that all myths have similar stories? That attempting to create a religious belief based on myths is no different than Hinduism or animism?

Biblioaltry has been the downfall of the Christianity when it is
advocated as the answer to all of life's problems. If it were followed as a guide, we would all be marrying many wives; have concubines; kill our first born; stone Sabbath-breakers and adulterers; wear no clothing that combined two materials; ostracize all women half of the month--shall I continue?

The absurdity of it all cannot be seen for the blindness of religious belief that has prevented ration and logic from sight. For those thousands of years ago to believe in demons and talking animals it was nothing unusual. Today, it is deemed a psychiatric condition--except for religion. Otherwise, such individuals would be committed if they truly followed it faithfully.

I am baffled by the disarray over the anolomies in plants and animals, since the "fall". The catch-all phrase seems to be that sin caused it! Pretty vague at best.

As I read the Scriptures: --even the parable of the Wheat and the Tares. "an enemy has done this!" I think I see a wider picture.

The "fall" included Satan taking dominion away from Adam--see the third temptation of Jesus. In "taking charge" plants became weeds, weeds became toxic, flowers grew thorns, skin got sores. anomolies became common. diversity took an evil turn.

The Christ event took back that dominion. Babylon has fallen.
Death has been conquored into sleep. We wait in hope but not in vain or vanity for the establishment of His Kingdon upon His earth as the second Adam and the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Those with despair look at distortion and call it natural selection. They then try to link these anomolies into some kind of progression. Of course, but the order is a reversal of the original intent. It was good at the foundation, it is bad to worse at the present. man himself the most purposeful and vindictive evil of them all.
Tom

Chris,
You are in trouble if you try and make a strict creationist view happen in this world in this reality. In that case, science absolutely can investigate claims made by theology that would leave evidence.

Putting the creation story into a different reality works in some sense because it protects it from the evidence to the contrary in this world. But I'm not sure it helps much theologically because one must ask why a God of truth and love would mess so much with time and space. Why would this God create everything together and then somehow in another reality create all over again using evolution with humans only arriving late in the picture? It's extremely messy and still doesn't give us a "fall" in this reality. One would think Jesus would need to be the redeemer of those who originally sinned in the other reality, not this one (not that we don't need saving in this world - we can all agree that a savior would be great.)

Of course every story we use to try and explain it has problems. Even the Biblical narrative is still quite vulnerable to theodicy issues. In every story we end up asking, "Why in the world would a God who is supposed to be all-powerful and all-loving act that way?" Or maybe it's just me who always ends up asking that, I don't know.

Chris' proposal reminds me of Hinduism and Mormomism and Role Playing Games clubs.

Let's have two models

(a) which is mathematically stated and based in observations made of experiments. We use it for deciding where to dig for gold.

(b) which is poorly described, based on the interpretation of some book of obscure origin, and which fails when tested in observations of experiments. We use it for saying what we believe in our social interactions with fellow believers.

Chris is literally a religious Trekky, or a member of the Baker Street Irregulars. He is not in search of truth. He is in search of a pleasant belief system.

/Bevin

Tom said:

"They then try to link these anomolies into some kind of progression."

Tom didn't we just talk about this? There is no "progression" in the biological theory of evolution.

"Why in the world would a God who is supposed to be all-powerful and all-loving act that way?"

It is a question I also end up asking myself a lot.

/Bevin

Beth:

No progression just linkage? Never saw a picture tracing ape to man: Beth?

Bevin

Choice has its consequences. Without free will God would be just a ventriloquist. To short stop the consequences God would have been just the top despot. Many still paint Him that way. Even J. Edwards preached about Man in the Hands of an Angry God. All the time the Gospel story is of God in the hands of angry men.

The intention from the beginning of evil in the heart of Lucifer has been to "kill" God. Now we try to "kill God" with alternative theories rather than nails.

I founded the Orthodontic Graduate Program at LLU. A Black Roman Catholic young man applied. He had excellent grades. He didn't smoke or drink. I wanted to accept him into the first class of students. The Dean of the Graduate School said: No all Adventists in at least the first class. I did accept him in the second class. He became the first Black Vice President of the American Dental Association. He was invited to be the commencement speaker for the LLU School of Dentistry Graduation several years ago. He and his wife were our house guests during Masters Week in Augusta. He did a study of teenages with maloccusions of the lower anterior teeth. We traveled across California to SDA boarding academies to get a study sample.

Guess, who of all my graduate students of 31 years, still sends me and Betty a Christmas card?

The linkage of Christianity is Guilt-Grace-Gratitude-Generosity. But no--man tries every way but loose to deny guilt by every means possible. Evolution is the most sophisticated way so far. The "self made man" has to apologize to no one, not even God. Tom

P.S.

Beth

If no progression why all the fuss over missing links?
Every year two to four obscure assistant professors turn over a rock and find one!

Bevin:

The remaining member of the first class--all firm solid SDA's with below average GPA's but excellent clinical grades: Became first a missionary and then a faculty member at LLU.

At each advancement, I sent him a congradulatory card, note, or e-mail or all three. I have yet to receive the first acknowledgement.
It seems he didn't approve of my defense of Dr. Graham Maxwell, My support of Des Ford and Smuts. Then he didn't approve of my dismembership and disassociation from the Southern Union following--the purge at SMC.

All this comes flooding back, since I just recieved a phone call from LLU asking to interview me on the history of the orthodontic department et al. The clinic carries a picture of all chairs and mentors but mine.

I would candidly say, the Grace does not abound. Certainly not toward the chief of sinners. Tom

P.S. the primary picture, is of a part-time faculty member who had an affair with his office girl. His wife, in the devorce got full control of his multi-story office building.
She raised the rent on his suite so high he had to move out.

Yet He is hailed as the primary founder of the ortho program. He is/was an awowed agnositic and evolutionist. I merely,
thought Graham, Des, and Smut preached a Gospel of redemption that brought assurance to the most degraded of human beings--even those convicted of adultery. But then, I accepted Latter Day Saints into my program and even ate with them and had Bible studies with them. One just can't be too careful can one? Tom

.

Hansen:

I appreciate your thoughts, especially your observation that our evangelists are out bringing people into a church with a traditional, high view of Scripture, but the Spectrumites don't share that view, and try to talk people out of it. I have to disagree with you on one point, however. You state that "Adventism and Spectrum embrace those who have no faith, in some respects, both work contrary to the redemptive mission of Christ", but officially Adventism does not "embrace" people who have no faith. A substantial number of people who have lost their faith hang around within Adventist (far more than I would ever have imagined) for reasons known only to them, but they are not officially "embraced."

David, While it may be that "officially" Adventism does not embrace people who have no faith, what the church does in practice is another matter.

Perhaps, Elaine, you can help us out here. Would you mind disclosing your church membership status? What roll, if any, do you play in a local SDA church?

There are certainly many others, who do not hold to views of Scripture or salvation that have a voice in the church. Homosexuals, for instance. How can a minister call for repentance from sin [homosexuality] and then have his candidate encounter obviously homosexual people on the church with whom he is supposed to fellowship?

I saw this in prison outreach. An openly gay, effeminate inmate who wanted to participate in the chapel choir, and was thought to be involved in immoral practices. Nearly all of the other inmates involved in the chapel were uncomfortable with his presence.

The quarrel over creation is misdirected. The real question is "Do you believe that Jesus, the unique God Man lived a sinless life, was crucified, rose again, and ascended into heaven, thereby securing the salvation of all who believe?

When "scholars" bring their tools to the gospel story, as they have to the creation narrative, what will be left?

Hansen

One of the primary charges against Jesus was He ate with sinners. I guess that is why former Adventists associate with Adventists no matter how obnoxious Adventists behave and write. They have the right to hear the Truth also. Tom

" Elaine, you can help us out here. Would you mind disclosing your church membership status? What roll, if any, do you play in a local SDA church?"

It is no secret to those of us who have been on this blog for quite a while. I asked for my membership to be withdrawn from the SDA church about 25 years ago, because I could not, in all honesty, affirm to the doctrinal statements that identified them. A decision I not only have never regretted but it has been more reinforced through the years.

I am a regular member of a very active SS class, and in the past have been asked to be a teacher, and other positions. Always I informed those who asked, that I was not officially a member, and the answer has always been: "It makes no difference."

While there may be other churches that would not accept me, the church which I now attend separated from a larger church approximately 25 years ago, and I was requested by Adventist Today to write an article describing this some 10 years ago. The former church separated three ways, and the one I attend is growing, probably faster than the others in the conference and we are a very independent congregation, and is accepted as such by the conference. Our pastor did not attend Andrews Seminary, but is a graduate of Fuller, and was an employee of one of the largest companies in Silicon Valley for seven years before becoming a minister. A great fit for our congregation.

Tom said:

"Beth:
No progression just linkage? Never saw a picture tracing ape to man: Beth?"

"Progress" is a value term - it isn't a description. Who is to say that going from an ape-like creature to a man is progress? Yes we have bigger brains which have helped us adapt but those bigger brains have allowed us to develop ways to wipe out our entire species plus most of life on this planet in a few seconds. Progress? Maybe, maybe not. It is a question for philosophers and theologians, not biologists. Biologists look at how well the creature is adapted to the environment - not how far along some sort of value scale it is.

The issue isn't whether you and I think it is progress to go from an ape to a human, it is whether the biological theory of evolution claims that it is progress. And it doesn't. Meaning that evolutionary biologists make no claims about progress when it comes to evolutionary changes.

Is going from an amphibian to a reptile progress? How would we know? Tape worms have evolved from more complex worms with many biological systems to a very simplistic worm with almost no biological systems. Progress? Certainly the worm is well-adapted for now which is what biologists are interested in.

Beth

The issue is not semantics. Progress and progression are two entirely different words. Playing the scales on a piano is progression. How well one does it is progress!

The idea of linkage is progression.

Never-the-less, evolution implies not only progression but progress. from a one chambered heart to a four chambered heart. A much better movement of blood and improvement in the exchange of gases.

Beth, you have a great yen to beg the issue. For what benefit, only you know. If you are trying to lecture me--forget it. We are not even on the same page. But there may be a reader or two you actually thinks you are making a point.

The entire discredited ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is just one of the progressive ideas of evolution that has been abandoned it was so laughable. gill slits became brachial arches. etc.

The history of evolution is strewn with as much junk as the middle ages churchmen that continued to vex even into Darwin's day.

Evolution is the alchemy of the 21st century. It produces nothing but noxious fumes of ego-centric bulimic gases and they call it enlightenment.

The major apologists are accomplished wordsmiths not scientists. Science is much more measured in its assertions.

They do believe they are closer to the truth than tribal peoples of 6000 years ago. In taking things apart, I agree in putting them back together only slightly improved. Tom

Some have suggested here that there is something scandalous about the church “embracing” people who have lost their faith (as opposed to those who have been found in gross immorality).

Whence cometh all this devotion to purity? I think some of you have a very one-dimensional view of the church—it is not merely an aggregation of persons who agree on certain theological propositions. It is also a collection of friends, worshipers, and it is a religious home. People do not, and should not, leave their home lightly or easily.

The church should not only birth us as Christians, but should provide room for us to grow, learn, and mature. Making room for this carries the “risk” that some will come to see things quite differently when they are grown up than they did when they were babies in the faith.

As far as I can tell, Jesus embraced pretty much everybody—including some very deficient persons. I should think that one of the marks of a genuine and vital Christian community would be that it does embrace people who do not have faith and do not measure up in other ways.

Bevin,

I am in search of truth. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the model. You may be right about it. But I thought it worthwhile exploring something outside the box.

Searching for truth occasionally requires seeing things in a different light, rather than being limited to the truth we think we have. I'm sorry you don't see any value in exploring a different idea.

Don,

Thanks for trying to understand. I think you can partly see where I was coming from. I appreciate that. Both creation and the fall do challenge the scientific axiom that what we see is what always is, and what was originally intended by God. This is part of the whole theodicy - that sin explains the bad things in a supernatural way.

As for animals not sinning, certainly they suffer the consequences, they have pain. Have you seen kangaroos dehydrating during a drought in Australia, they really suffer badly. I will never believe that is God's original design.

Perhaps in your model, if sin was present already and God manipulated evolution towards man's creation, despite the existing presence of sin, I might be more interested to explore it. But even that has some shortcomings in my opinion. You trying to say that pain and suffering existed before sin, I think is equally messing with time!

When you say that the special creation model requires God deceiving us, I strongly reject that, and ask you to please respect that we believe that sin caused a lot of the change - and so the idea of God deceiving is unnecessary, almost a strawman argument. It shows disrespect for our belief that sin caused death.

Beth,

You said, "But I'm not sure it helps much theologically because one must ask why a God of truth and love would mess so much with time and space."

I don't see why it is any more than believing that we were created perfect, and now we can die, this is equally messing with space and time, in my opinion. Even the existence of sin along with an omnipotent God is a paradox that makes no sense, yet we choose to have faith in it, maybe because it makes more sense to us than not. Why would a God of truth allow atheists to believe there is no God? Is He deceiving them or us? No, I will never buy the argument that because sin exists, God is therefore untruthful. God certainly does allow us to believe what we want, He is a God of freedom. He does not force us to believe lies. And He always provides a path to faith and truth, but that is up to us to explore.

Even futher, in the end days, the lies will be so great that even the elect would be decieved, if that was possible. Therefore, we need to always keep a slightly open mind, I think. So, even if the majority believe something, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is God's truth.

Maybe the hypothetical model of space and time goes too far, but it draws out the idea that science can not falsify supernatural, and it allows science to be correct within it's own assumptions and axioms. Maybe there is a different type of causality, that rather than messing with time, that sin just messed with physical spatially. This is sufficient still to explain what we see as being different to what was originally created - even enough to give meshwebs of supportive data that make an appearance of long age effects - and so it does not have to mean that God is lying for us to come to wrong conclusions. The point of it is that religion can and does challenge the axioms of science, and science can not disprove any religious supernatural belief. And the belief can explain all of what we see.

This is understanding the limits of the philosophy science. It does question how much faith we can or should put into science. I choose not to put my eternal hope in science alone.

Tom,

I am trying to lecture you. You are not describing evolution accurately. However, I know it is annoying to be lectured and I promise I'll stop since it is clearly not appreciated and isn't doing any good anyway.

Beth,

You said of the two realities model, "It's extremely messy and still doesn't give us a "fall" in this reality"

The model never required that people were completely different beings in the different 'realities'. Experientally, it would have been Adam and Eve that fell from that reality into this reality. Their sin caused the whole appearance of the sinful reality. And what science can find as their history is no longer what it originally was.

I don't have good enough language to explain. We do believe that creation was physically 'different' before the fall of man. Calling that another 'reality' maybe gives the impression that it was never real. Me calling it another reality, simply means that the one we see now is the only reality that current science can ever hope to comprehend - and that is simply because of the limited reach of scientific investigation that we have available to us now.

Any description that science can make of the current appearance of reality is limited to the axioms of current science!

This is the same paradox of the model that I posed that is in the Biblical story.

Bruce,

Thanks for sharing your personal account. Counting the costs is sound advice, and I'm sorry you came to it through such an ordeal. I have nothing to complain about in comparison, having not been called to study theology or biology. My hat is off to you Zane!

Nightdweller,

I wish you'd give Ghandi a second look. Imagine if at least one side to embrace the discipline of peace-making and stop enflaming the worst fears of the other. How stupid this argument must look to someone outside this community who properly understands the law of non-resistance and sees how far we have strayed from being known by our love for one another.

Blake

Beth

You are incorrect--your lecture is dead on arrival. In fact it had no life in it. your labor the words progression and progress completely out of context--just to beg the question.

Progression is the word I used to indicate a series--as an alternative to the word linkage. Evolution insists on drawing a time line in which there is a progression of images from simple to complex. That is for sure. The implication is also that that progression is also progress that is improvement. Concommitantly the philosophical accompanyment in the late 1800's early 1900's was the phrase: Every day and in every way I am getting better and better a moral parallel to physical evolution.

Moreover, the progression of organs, as I suggest the simple one chambered heart to the four chambered heart has always been cited as an evolutionary progression: implicitly as progress. I used the term progression simply as synonymous with with linkage. The wonderful hopeful golden grail of evolution to tie the entire form continuum into a continuous chain. You keep begging the terms to their most narrow application--far outside of the usage of evolution--it is not merely a journalistic tool--it is the pictoral reality of the evolutionists' expectation.

I will grant you that all progressions are not progress--evolutionists see some adaptations a retrograde--I supposed if one asked the original primordial soup if the clam was progress? the soup would say certainly not, how dare you? I am the mother soup that gave rise to that upstart!!!! The clam would certainly say: "look how much better organized I am than "Mother"!" Of course evolution does not clain that evolution is unidirectional--some it seems insists on going back to a more soupy state. In any case such change is progressive that is by stages or links. "Never ever a single leap!" The problem alway has been and remains those steps are never demonstrated---they are the missing links. Of course, evolutionists would deny they imply such a characterization. So I don't blame you for getting excited in being called on it. There really is on progression nor progress--in fact no evolution--just adaptation, diversity, and mutation.Guided by the master genetist--Lucifer in taken Adam's place as the one to tend the creation God gave Adam--pure, clean, and adaptable. Tom

Elaine, Thank you for informing those of us who are unaware of your history.

I suppose that I am the one out of step with the majority here. I disagree with Don's view of the church. To my thinking, the church is a community of faith, that is people who have a life changing belief in the redemption story.

I recognize, however, that many people here support you in your unbelief and critical views of the Bible. Personally, I consider that unfortunate for you, since you are being affirmed while holding views inimical to salvation. That is exactly what the New Testament advises us not to do.

And I'm only using you by way of illustration, because you are representative of many. Donna Haerich, Herold Weiss, Tom Zwemer, and others are sympathetic to your views, or appear to be.

With regard to David's comment, denying Adventism's embrace of infidelity and the harmful impact on its witness, it is obvious that the denomination and its member/former members are playing games with church membership. The real issue is not membership but fellowship.

The NT advises the saints to avoid, shun, deliver to Satan, not sup with, those who hold views contrary to NT teaching. Paul went so far as to openly curse them.

Amazing Facts, which is one of the most active evangelistic outreaches in the world, is not an SDA organization. You will not find the SDA trademark on its website. Visit the BRI, Advent Review, or VOP websites. The SDA trademark or registered name is there. Amazing Facts does not display it.

Suppose Doug Batchelor "went native" like the Marlon Brando character in Apocalypse Now. No problem. Not an official SDA ministry. Neither Spectrum or AToday are official sites either.

My point, David, is that corporate Adventism plays all angles, I suppose in hope of getting tithe or donations. Not sure what other purpose there would be. It sure doesn't make for one, big, happy, family.

If a person who believes the Bible is a myth, for instance, can be offered a teaching position in an SDA church, what is the relevance of church membership? It's irrelevant. Once the church decides to fellowship with someone who holds those views, membership becomes a moot point.

The same is going to happen with homosexuals and evolutionists. If homosexuals and evolutionists throw enough money around the denomination, there acceptance will, indeed, become an amazing fact.

20 or 30 years ago Bacchiocchi prophesied that the hermeneutic being employed to advance feminist inclusiveness in the denomination would open the doors for homosexual inclusion. That camel's nose is well in the tent. Now were moving to critical views of Scripturein areas such as Creation. I never understood how "cultural context" could be, with a straight face, called upon to dismiss what Scripture attributed to the roll of women in the fall of man.

While this is being sold as science, it really is an attack on the veracity of Scripture, or at least the traditional interpretation of it. There may be the real solution. It may be entirely possible to interpret Scripture correctly in such a way that the age of the earth and creation process do allow for periods longer than previously understood.

Beth

I suggest you google evolutionary progression. here's just one
Also read S. J. Gould

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1986 October; 83(20): 7961–7965. PMCID: PMC386844

Copyright notice
Evolutionary progression at synaptic connections made by identified homologous neurones.
S R Shaw and I A Meinertzhagen
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Abstract

Tom

Beth

Progressive Evolution Using Subgoals as Common Properties in an Elite Population. Autonomous Progressive Evolution Using Subgoals as Common Properties in an Elite Population.Accession number;01A0533442
Title;Autonomous Progressive Evolution Using Subgoals as Common Properties in an Elite Population.
Author;MATSUZAKI MOTOAKI(Nagoya Univ., Graduate School of Engineering, JPN) KAWAI TAKAMITSU(West Virginia Univ., Wv, Usa) ANDO HIDEKI(Nagoya Univ., Graduate School of Engineering, JPN) SHIMADA TOSHIO(Nagoya Univ., Graduate School of Engineering, JPN)
Journal Title;Transactions of the Society of Instrument and Control Engineers

Journal Code:S0104A

ISSN:0453-4654

VOL.37;NO.4;PAGE.362-371(2001)
Figure&Table&Reference;FIG.11, TBL.4, REF.20
Pub. Country;Japan
Language;Japanese
Abstract;Progressive evolution is one of the promising methods to improve convergency of genetic algorithms(GAs). It can find the solution with fewer iterations than conventional GAs by giving step-by-step subgoals that can be easily reached, not by hard task of searching directly for a solution in a large space. Conventional progressive evolution methods, however, have a serious problem that each subgoal must be set manually. Furthermore, they require extensive knowledge about a given problem such as the landscape of the search space, because of the obligatory manually set subgoals. For these problems, we previously proposed a progressive evolution method that can set subgoals autonomously. Yet, it still requires knowledge about problems such as the problem solving level. In this paper, we propose a new progressive evolution method that can set subgoals autonomously with little knowledge of the problem. In our method, we define the next subgoal as the common properties in an elite population of the current generation. Setting subgoals only requires the properties of individual phenotypes. Thus, little knowledge about the problem is required. We applied our method to the 6-multiplexor problem and the action control circuit for artificial ants to evaluate its searching ability. The experimental result confirms that our method performs progressive evolution with good convergency by appropriately setting subgoals. (author abst.)
Tom

Bruce, I'm just now reading your comment, and am properly terrified again. =) Thank you for sharing your experience and your wise words about counting the costs. I'm sorry to hear what happened.

I do, hope, however, that all the battles that were fought in the 70's and 80's (about Ellen White and the IJ) have opened up the way for more dialogue and diversity. It seems, to me at least, that these issues are no longer on the forefront of people's minds and (some) Adventists are no longer threatened by taking more a historical approach to Ellen White, for example.

Blake, who knows, perhaps particles physics will be the next battleground in our lifetime! We can debate and hate each other on the question of if string theory is Biblical or not. =)

Tom,

Genetic algorithms are a branch of computer science where the programmer SETS A GOAL of SOLVING A PROBLEM and the program attempts to find GOOD solutions for that problem.

This is why the paper is published in "Transactions of the Society of Instrument and Control Engineers" and not a journal of biology.

In this domain, the concept of PROGRESS TOWARDS A SOLUTION makes sense. In biology, it does not.

/Bevin

"Never ever a single leap!"

There are leaps. Here is one...

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Polyploidy.html

"However, the tetraploid plants can breed with each other. So in one generation, a new species has been formed.

Polyploidy even allows the formation of new species derived from different ancestors.

In 1928, the Russian plant geneticist Karpechenko produced a new species by crossing a cabbage with a radish.
"

Read the rest of the article and the background material. It is fascinating.

/Bevin

Bevin,

There is a contradiction going on there.

A) Evolution is a process that apparently explains we came from less complex to more complex. (some form of increasing complexity is required to explain this)

B) Evolution is not directed, the fact that it did what it did is shear chance. (we don't really have a model that predicts increasing complexity, so just dumb luck I guess!)

Bevin

Under Darwin and up to the 60 and 70's progression was in.

The it became obsolete and out of favor. It took too much heat and laughter.

Now evolution has subsumed adaptation, mutation, and the entire field of genetics and cross breeding and progression is once again in. The latest fad is global warming and it impact on species. Speciation is genetics on evolution. That was well within the Genesis command/intention.

Anything to gain credibility eh? Tom

Chris: if you think more deeply, you will see this is not a contradiction.

Humans are NOT the most complex thing on this planet. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21017541/

Evolution is a process that explains how the self-replicating molecules around us, from viruses (very simple) to grapes (very complex), came about by mutation and selection, leaving behind evidence in the rocks and in the genes of the process.

As one would expect, thinking about this, there are advantages and disadvantages to complexity, and so a wide range of complexity has developed.

Luck, again, is a 'value' term. The inability of many creationists to drop such biased terms from their vocab is a consequence of their inability to drop it from their thinking - they can't distinquish what IS from what THEY WANT

Tom: Do you think the evolution of whales from mice is within the Genesis range of speciation?

/Bevin

bevin

Do you? The major mouse genetics lab is in Bar Harbor Maine,

Whales swim by all the time. They don't even wave to their very close cousins.

Tom

Since you describe them as 'very close cousins', I take it that means you believe that they are within the Genesis range.

/Bevin

Tom,

Here's a really good short article that sums up what we are talking about.

http://www.science.siu.edu/zoology/king/304/progress.htm

Bevin,

OK, so the way I termed it, does not match the way you described it. I see that your definition does give the impression that evolution is directed. Fair enough, then that paradox does disappear. But my underlying question I think was missed.

"Humans are NOT the most complex thing on this planet." It depends on what attributes you count as complex? I was just having this same discussion the other day with uncle uranutang. He's actually a devout sort of perso...

Why is your word 'advantage' any less biased than my word 'luck'? They both imply some sort of benefit?

So, you are accepting that complexity is advantageous. Shouldn't it be something I want? Should I WANT to be a lower primate instead?

You are describing evolution to be driven by some function that describes fitness as measured by 'advantage' and 'disadvantage', where advantage is somewhat proportional to complexity.

To get the terms of reference right, I think you are saying that disadvantage just means not likely to exist for long - so the stuff that is more likely to exist for longer is what does exist for longer. I think I am good with the understanding of lasting longer being an advantage. Unless you have some different interpretation of advantage and disadvantage?

So, the first point I disagree with, is that complex structures are more likely to exist longer than the not-so-complex. The relationship is normally inverse to what you suggest, especially in my experience as a mechanical engineer. The more complex something is, the quicker and easier it is to fall apart. Or to look at it the other way. One of the simplest things in the world is carbon crystal - i.e. diamond, now that is a tough thing - crystals are the opposite of complex. Crystals are extremely homogeneous!

Yet, evolution wants me to accept that more complex structures are more likely to exist for longer. Why is that?

It flies against all that I know about science in the natural world. This is generally summed up by the second law of thermodynamics - and I have seen some shocking misrepresentations of this argument, so bare with me, if you don't understand that I can go into a lot more depth for you.

Now, you need to describe for me a process that goes against what I know nature to do. And, you have to convince me that it did that for eons of time, and accumulated further and further into more complex things that lasted even longer and longer the more complex they got, continually going against the laws of nature more and more!

I think it takes a lot of faith to believe this was true. I can't falsify it (can't disprove anything scientifically!), but I don't think it was likely.

Chris,

It's not dumb luck that evolution leads to more complexity. Natural selection gives an advantage to those organisms that have a kind of complexity that provides survival/reproductive advantage.

To all on this thread:

This thread is dominated by Tom, by dint of his wit and storytelling ability. Having been on the receiving end of one of his declarations of irrelevancy, I no longer find his posts so entertaining as I once did. Beth could be forgiven for being similarly offended.

Hansen comes up with an occasional perfectly correct, perceptive remark ("It's all about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus"), but his underlying attitude is that everyone who does not perfectly toe the line should get out of the church. I decline his invitation.

So long, guys, have fun beating each other up.

Don

Beth,

If evolution does not describe progress - as an increase in complexity, then it does not describe how we got from post soup to person. If I may define a person as more complex than post soup.

Abiogenesis aside, from then on, there must have been increasing complexity to get to human. Where did this come from if evolution fails to explain it?

Natural selection reduces complexity. Always, it makes things die - without exception - it reduces the gene pool as well. How does that give any possible advantage?

Don.

You don't want to stay for the fun? We have been at it for months! Thanks for your input on my strange idea.

Chris,

Hey, I got other things to do, such as building a new deck on the side of my house, re-printing my Modesto (local history) book, making chemical warfare on the crown vetch in my prairie planting, and propagandizing for universal health care.

They call me a doctor of philosophy, but I don't know much about philosophy. For me, metaphysical speculation is heavy labor, and takes a lot of energy and time.

So I have taken the simple way out: I 1) believe the scientific evidence (in the rocks, in the observable universe), and 2) I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and I pray. These form my bedrock.

There are plenty of religious people out there who say that there is a contradiction between 1) and 2). I do not believe this. You can follow out the philosophical threads emanating from both these positions, but you better be careful, it's very easy to go haywire.

So, I gotta go. I'll keep reading. Maybe I'll write again sometime.

Don

Personal view, after fifty years of study of the subject, and one not held dogmaticaly:

When looking at geology (oil, coal, sandstone, et cetera), Ushers creationism is untenable.

Looking at paleontolgy and biology, Darwin's evolution is no better.

Looking at astronomy, Usher's creationism is pitiful.

I must conclude that both models are incomplete. There has to be a third model, one that takes into account inspiration, observation, and reason. Try this:

God is a creator and as such is creative. He has been creating for a long time. Death did not enter recently. Witness the depth of matter in the earth's crust which was made organicly.

There is room in Genesis 10 for long time periods. "Father of" can mean "ancestor of."

There is no conclusive evidense for modern man being on the earth prior to the last ice age.

A reasonable model might be for modern man, a new species, to be made some 12,000 plus years ago. "You will die" could be die sooner than I origally wanted. "Created sun, moon, and stars" could be created with respect to us. There was a light excluding condition after the age of volcanos.

Let's not give up on the I AM, the creator, yet. I hope to see Him some day, and have Him explain to me how wrong the above is!

Please excuse the above spelling errors. I always had two secretaries, and never learned to spell!

Hansen

I'm not certain what purpose you have in calling into question Elaine and other paticipants in these discussions and I'd rather not get into a debate with you about it.

I think that Elaine enriches our conversations by insisting that we face some issues that we are inclined to dodge.

Our answers do not have to be her answers, but in my view her questions ought to be our questions too. Otherwise we are not facing reality.

In any case, she has just as much a right to participate as do you and I. Let's stick to the issues, and not worry about who should have permission to address them!

Dave

> Natural selection reduces complexity. Always, it makes things die - without exception - it reduces the gene pool as well. How does that give any possible advantage?

Chris,

(a) mutation adds noises
(b) selection picks between the noises
(c) the result is an increase in information

It is the same as
(a) throw ten coins onto a table
(b) remove the ones that are tails
(c) the result is all heads - a state that looks and is non-random

If you don't understand how evolution works, then you should go to the library and read one of the thousands of books about it BEFORE wasting any more of our time with observations like this one

/Bevin

ps: One of the distinquishing characteristics of someone who simply doesn't want to understand evolution is

They think that somehow it is impossible because it involves increasing complexity/information

despite the fact that for over 150 years people much smarter and knowledgeable than they are have recognized that it is possible.

It is the same way that mathematicians can recognize people who haven't done their homework... People who claim to have done something (eg: trisected the angle) that has already been proven to be impossible. http://www.gap-system.org/~history/HistTopics/Trisecting_an_angle.html

/Bevin

Don,

You are a gentlemen, I enjoyed discussing it with you, thank you for showing kindness.

Bevin,

Are you refuting the following, is it a fraud?
http://www.math.lsu.edu/~verrill/origami/trisect/

I will defer to your mathematical skills if you can show me why that is a fraud.

Believe me, I understand the theory of evolution, and I did not say that it is impossible. I said it seems unlikely, and I just don't have much faith in it. There is an important difference. I admit that the mechanisms can not be scientifically falsified. But the logic can be assessed for internal coherence. The areas where faith is required deserve to be examined. You can't sweep them under the rug.

You've built your whole rebuttal on me not accepting that it is possible. You are wrong to do that. I accept it may be possible.

You've got a nasty habit of impugning my intelligence. You suggest that I am not in search of truth, based on your a-priori assumption that you are correct and that I am wrong. I don't mind admitting the possibility that I am wrong, isn't that a hallmark of being in search of truth? How much room do you leave for the possibility that evolution is wrong?

You have a rabbit in your hat if you believe in theistic evolution - that miracles may have occurred along the way. So, the theory can be as solid as you choose it to be! But then why defer to naturalistic explanations as the only ones at every turn, your God of the gaps will keep shrinking!

"They think that somehow it is impossible because it involves increasing complexity/information"

This is grossly misrepresenting what I said. I know that mutations are what generates the increase in complexity - mostly they don't, they just rearrange within the same limit of complexity! But sometimes, they might somehow produce an increase? You have not addressed my argument at all. My point was not that an increase in complexity is impossible. My challenge was that increasing complexity usually has a negative correlation with stability! This is surmised in the second law of thermodynamics. I have not seen a good refutation of this argument.

I have read a number of biology textbooks that describe evolution. My wife has a nice collection of them as she studied environmental biology. I read Charles Darwin's book again this year as well - but it was still the same as it always was! So, I don't think I need to go the library unless you can direct me to a book that has a proper refutation of the second law of thermodynamics argument.

I have read Daniel Dennet's argument of this - he uses an analogy from metallurgy - annealing. He is a good philosopher, but his analogy has a fundamental mistake - annealing is simplifying and homogenizing the structure of the iron - spreading and averaging of the stress concentrations is decreasing rather than increasing complexity. The same fundamental flaw that they use when they say that crystals are somehow more complex. So I am still yet to read a coherent refutation of the second law of thermodynamics argument against evolution.

Showing increasing ordering, may give the illusion of something special going on, but the examples so far I have seen only include decreasing complexity. They need to demonstrate a different type of increasing complexity, as Don Rhoads correctly stated. I would think it has to have:
1) an increasing complexity,
2) that shows ordering as well,
(these two together are what we understand as the hallmarks of design, usually),
3) and then further, the increase in complexity combined together with the increase in ordering need to result in longer survival.

I am yet to be made aware of any natural process or mechanism that can achieve this as required to explain evolution. This problem is particularly bad around the abiogenesis stage, and very early on, because there was less structure to work with!

Cyrus,

Here is a question for you. If recent sin actually did supernaturally change our creation, like the Bible says, then what results would you expect science to find? What if sin changed things so fundamentally that our science thinks it can see long age. It seems you have discarded a lot of things on the premise that sin could not change anything supernaturally. I suggest that this can not be falsified, so I wonder why discard it so easily?

Bevin,

I don't know why you brought up mathemetical proofs, in regards to scientific investigation of the physical world. But I can maybe use this to explain what I am talking about. You may suggest that the rules are brokem in order to trisect an angle - because we are bending the plane of trisection and performing mirroring - which is not achievable by compass and straight edge alone on a flat plane. I was impressed as a teenager when I saw a Japanese man put western wisdom to shame when he did it with origami. He showed that it is possible - we just had to think outside the plane of the paper.

This is useful because although creation is not achievable by the tools that we have, and we don't understand how sin could change us physically. But we still can't say that something is completely impossible, when there are different types of tools being claimed.

David Larson, My post was in response to David Read's remark and was not addressed to you, although I welcome any observations or remarks you might make.

In order for a website to be anything other than mayhem, there needs to be accountability on the part of those who participate.

If I repeatedly include factual errors in my posts, how can others, without repaying me in my own coin, properly respond?

As an example, suppose in an effort to discredit EGW, I say that the Bible says Abraham smoked cigarettes perhaps even a cigar now and then. How would you respond? Am I being responsible or upholding an unspoken contract to tell the truth. Am I excused for just being "dumb?"

What would be the appropriate response of the community?

Probably most people associated with Adventism who hold views of Scripture similar to mine simply stay away from Spectrum. Cliff drops by now and then, but his disdain for "Spectrumites" and "Spectrumland" is no secret.

Really, there is very little serious effort being made to engage Scripture. Often, it comes up in a negative sense as unscientiic, uninspired, a mythology, legends. Some who try to understand it come up with postulates equating sodomy with beard trimming, or eating a shrimp cocktail. "Spectrumites" seems to specialize in a wild and irresponsible approach to the Bible.

A poster makes a remark about the dome over the earth describd by the term "firmament" in Genesis. From that position, the Bible can then be ridiculed as out of touch, quaint, a product of its times, and so forth.

Of course, a responsible handling of Scripture would include other passages in which the term firmament is used in a way that it becomes obvious that the firmament is not a dome but simply refers to the heavens.

Spectrum is just the opposite of certain fundamentalist type SDA churches I used to attend. Most of the participants were far to the right, perfectionists, legalists, people who venerated EGW but were ignorant of most of what she wrote. They were, however, free to opine on a variety of topics from their [to my thinking] very ignorant and prejudiced perspective. On the other hand, the very few who held to more evangelical views of salvation, were hushed, marginalized, publicly contradicted when they spoke contrary to the tide.

Why should those who savage Scripture be given free rein but those who would hold others accountable be marked? If I simply say that I'm going to start posting whatever comes to mind without regard for its truthfulness or accuracy, is that OK?

Spectrum moderators should be looking at more than political correctness, and liberal, atheist, infidel credentials. Perhaps they are and have just come down on the other side of the deep and impassable chasm that divides.

Why not have Elaine write an article advancing her views of the Bible? Then she could be held accountable and more importantly, provide justification and her rationale for the views that she holds.

It's not her views so much as the "drive by" approach to dispersing them that annoys me. Let her be subject to the same criticism that she levels at Scripture. If she can offer a decent defense of her views, fine. If not, well, that will be her problem.

I think what bothered me about this whole debate is the person who started it. David Asscherick began a mass emailing to people in the church at large. He is not qualified to tell a university what to teach, what education credentials does he have? What's next, someone will tell the Seminary at Andrews their Greek classes have to use the Textus Receptus for their classes as apposed to the current Nestle/Aland or United Bible Society (which most NT scholars consider more accurate). What bothered me is that according to his email he based his opinion of LaSierra based upon talking to a few students. He was near the campus for a week, why didn't he sit in on some of the classes. He also went directly to the Adventist Church at large. Why didn't he follow the Bible and use Matthew 18 and speak with the leadership of the LaSierra University before sending out a mass email.

Hansen I find it most ironic that you would ask that Elaine give an account of her view of scripture when you refuse to provide the same.

In a discussion on the blog for 4 March 2008 titled “The Bible: A Biography - Karen Armstrong” I tried to get you to explain how your faith in the Bible differed from a Muslim believers equally ardent faith in the Quran.

Your response was, “Courtenay, there are lots of people here more intelligent and better educated than I, ask one of them.” Posted by: Hansen (not verified) | 11 March 2009 at 12:01

You refuse to give an explanation for the rational behind your understanding and interpretation of the Bible but require that others provide a rational for theirs?

Courtenay, As you probably know, there is some controversy in Islam regarding the appropriateness of men wearing silk. It is a matter of dispute, with apparent contradictory evidence on both sides of the matter.

I'm wearing silk right now. I very much enjoy silk. I'm thinking of having a friend, who is a seamstress, measure me for some pure silk shirts in various colors. I can wear silk with a clean conscience as a Christian, perhaps not so as a follower of Muhammad. That is one way in which my faith differs from a Muslim.

I apologize for taking such a long time to respond, but I only recently became aware of this distinction between Osama bin Laden and myself, although I suppose it is possible that he wears silk too, since it might be a matter of dispute among some Muslims.

Chris

1 - do your own study - the url for trisecting the angle tells you it can't be done in euclidean geometry. It also points to other papers. The problem is in the magic fold to move the ruler

2 - I pointed out to you polypoidy and the fact that we see it happening today, in the lab, and in the outside world. We have experimentally demonstrated what you are saying can't happen when you write "My challenge was that increasing complexity usually has a negative correlation with stability! This is surmised in the second law of thermodynamics. I have not seen a good refutation of this argument." The argument is refuted BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN IT HAPPEN!!!!!!!

Yes, I repeatedly point out that your thinking is wrong. It is hardly surprising, since you are disagreeing with 200 years of mainstream scientific thought using trite arguments. We all have limited intelligence, and recognizing our own limits is an important part of clear thinking. If you don't like it, then question your own ideas before taking them on the road.

/Bevin

Lana

You are so very right!

This is precisely why I think we have given D.A. far more attention than he deserves and that it was a tactical mistake to take him seriously. By doing so we increased his importance and decreased ours.

How I wish that we had just ignored him, except for a very short and bland news report. Instead, we fanned this little spark of controversy until its flames became large and hot enough that the President of the General Conference felt he had to try to cool things down.

From an administrative or procedural point of view, his remarks might be considered "middle ground" because he found some space between launching a purge and saying nothing.

But conceptually or doctrinally, I cannot read his remarks as anything other than an endorsement of the most reactionary views in our community of faith on this topic.

I do not say that these are his own views, something I don't know either way. Neither do I say that he is dishonest if they aren't.

Leaders are often obliged to mandate things they do not personally prefer just as judges usually have to follow the law even when they disagree with it. It wouldn't surprise me if this is where our GC President found himnself.

But who put him in that corner? We did! We--by this I mean "Adventist Today" and "Spectrum"--have made things worse, much worse.

Now, in addition to everything else they have to face, those who would explore new and what they take to be better interpretations of the scientific and scriptural evidence will have to deal with Elder Paulsen's letter and the document he quoted which was not prveiously as well known or as highly regarded.

It was unnecessary for us to provoke this response from Elder Paulsen and in my view it has been unhelpful.

I say this as one who has long been involved with and supportive of AF/Spectrum and I intend to continue this, even if money turns out to be the only thing I can contribute for a while.

Thank you!

Dave

Bevin,

I understand euclidean geometry. Do you think us mechanical engineers have no respect for geometry? And I already acknowledged that the mathematical proof was sufficient for the given boundaries. Do you really not understand the analogy that I drew from that? That the boundaries are what I am questioning with evolution.

Perhaps I should have acknowledged why you first posted about the mathematical proof. Your point was that a lot of the refutations have already been answered. I understand that you think that already, isn't that obvious? And that's partly why I thought you could help me. I have seen attempted answers at these questions. Some people accept the answers on faith.

Part of me is open for an answer, and of course part of me hopes that you will see that evolution has problems too. That is only natural. You can't begrudge me for that. You shouldn't make it personal.

I wasn't questioning polyploidy. My question was at a much more primal level than that. Polyploidy is way down the track when cells have already developed and multiple sets of chromosomes have evolved. My question is a genuine question based on my own experience. How did that structure evolve.

You can't use a mechanism that requires evolution in the first place to answer a question about how evolution is possible. That is a tripe answer. That is the euclidean plane that my questions are within. You are sliding the rule!

I am sorry that you think my question to be tripe. I know it is a very fundamental question. I would like to understand an answer. I have been wrong about certain aspects of evolution before and am happy to be corrected.

Appealing to authority of the establishment is just an arrogant answer. It shows me that my question annoys you, and that you are not interested in explaining it to me. You continue to portray that I am below you without apology, you often show that you misunderstand my questions, so I will not disturb your sanctuary again.

I do respect you, but feel that for some reason or another you really misunderstand me. And that frustrates you. Maybe the way I have approached you has not always been the best as well - maybe I have not shown enough understanding towards you. So I apologize for my part. Hopefully on some other topics we may be more agreeable.

Anyone who calls on the name Christ as Lord, I am their brother, and I wish to be at peace with you. I do not hold any disrespect of you even though our views are different.

Chris:

I guess I better defend myself. You say

"They need to demonstrate a different type of increasing complexity, as Don Rhoads correctly stated. I would think it has to have:
1) an increasing complexity,
2) that shows ordering as well,
(these two together are what we understand as the hallmarks of design, usually),
3) and then further, the increase in complexity combined together with the increase in ordering need to result in longer survival."

What I said was "Natural selection gives an advantage to those organisms that have a kind of complexity that provides survival/reproductive advantage."

"Complexity" being, in this case, I think, a "soft" term for which we have an intuitive feel (we think, for instance, that the human ear is a more complex structure than, say, a piece of bone--but do we really know?).

All I meant to say is that if an organism changes (in a way that we might superficially describe as an increase in complexity) the test is whether or not it survives better than it would have previous to the change. The advantage inheres in its survival capability, not in any supposed increase in complexity, whatever that is.

I don't know a mathematical definition of complexity. I think it might be difficult, as (I'm told by people who should know) is the definition of "chaos".

For your edification (as an engineer you may have run into this previously), here is the mathematical definition of two kinds of ordering. I doubt they will be of much use in this discussion:

If E is a set, a partial ordering of that set is defined as a set R of pairs (a,b) of members of E with certain properties. For convenience we will say aRb to mean "(a,b) belongs to the relation R".

R is a partial ordering if
1) for every a in E, aRa
2) for every a and b in E, if aRb and bRa then a = b
3) if aRb and bRc then aRc.

R is a linear ordering of the set E if it is a partial ordering and it is also true that either aRb or bRa is true whenever a and b are distinct elements of E.

I really don't think these are the kinds of ordering you are trying to talk about in connection with evolution. But if we are going to seriously argue using terms such as "complexity", "greater" or "lesser", or "order", we need to know what we are talking about. "It's not so easy as I thought", said Pooh.

Cheers, Don

P.S.: I invite anyone who thinks I am underestimating the signficance of LSU's critics to visit eduatetruth.com and go from there to the site where signitures are being collected. Get the total, subtract all those who are clearly not from the Pacific Union Conference, LSU's sponsoring organization, and make that a fraction of the total PUC membership.

David,
I have learned that it is not numbers or information that make the changes but money. A couple of large donors with deep pockets make numbers and information irrelevant.
Donna

Chris,

--- Geometry

You write

"You may suggest that the rules are brokem in order to trisect an angle - because we are bending the plane of trisection and performing mirroring - which is not achievable by compass and straight edge alone on a flat plane."

Then you write

"I understand euclidean geometry. Do you think us mechanical engineers have no respect for geometry?"

If you understood euclidean geometry, then you know that it is trivial to perform folding a flat plane along a line back onto itself with compass and straight edge alone - and that this operation is mirroring.

--- Complexity

First you write "Always, it makes things die - without exception - it reduces the gene pool as well. How does that give any possible advantage?"

GENES => DNA => CELLS AND DNA BASED REPRODUCTION

You are asking how increased complexity OF THE GENES is an advantage. So I demolish this line of argument by pointing you at ploypoidy.

Then you tell me that "I wasn't questioning polyploidy."

Of course you were. You said "gene pool".

Now that argument is demolished, you retreat back to
"My question was at a much more primal level than that. Polyploidy is way down the track when cells have already developed and multiple sets of chromosomes have evolved. My question is a genuine question based on my own experience. "

The problem is that your own experience is too limited. You have questions because you aren't looking in the right places for answers. Why are you reading Darwin? True, he was one of the two major founders, but there have been huge developments since then. You should start with modern textbooks, ones written since 2000, not 150 year old ones.

You must consider that the single cell organisms we see around us today are also the product of the same generations of evolution that you and I are. They are not the primeval ones either.

The possible paths to the first cells are areas of active research, we will probably never know which of the many possible paths were followed. But you are denying that there are any viable paths.

--- Appeals to authority

I am not appealing to the authority of 150 years of science. There have been repeated overturnings of much longer periods of science than that.

What I am saying is that there is 150 years of questions AND ANSWERS that you are ignoring. To overturn evolution you are going to have to do one of two things

(1) Find new evidence
(2) Find a new question

You have done neither, yet you think that it is "unlikely"

--- Strong v Weak arguments

You wrote "Yet, evolution wants me to accept that more complex structures are more likely to exist for longer. Why is that? "

Nonsense. Evolution does not require a single cell amoeba to outsurvive a diamond. It requires them to be able to reproduce - after that, the parent can die. It is not a question of durability.

If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, then they need to be able to (a) be conveyed to other people, and (b) be difficult to knock over. Putting up trite arguments like this shows you aren't doing your homework.

--- Fellow christians

As a person, and fellow christian, you are interesting and likeable. You have thought more about this topic than 99% of short age creationists. Like >99.9% of short age christians, you don't know what you don't know.

/Bevin

"Instead, we fanned this little spark of controversy until its flames became large and hot enough that the President of the General Conference felt he had to try to cool things down."

Who was it that sent the letter to Paulsen David? Who was it that started that ridiculous petition and pressured the Paulsen, pretty much forcing the hand of the GC and demanding they respond? It wasn't us!

We here all know where the blame lies, and it is not anywhere within a mile of Spectrum and Adventist Today!

The way I see it, THEY went on the offensive and we here are merely speaking amongst ourselves in our own defense-and I hardly think Paulsen spends any time reading comments in our humble little corner of the Adventist online community or really cares what we have to say either way. Yes, Erv Taylor and John McLarty did issue responses and then Educate Truth published them on thier website. So what? All they did was provide reasonable, calm rebuttals and counterbalance over there to fundamentalist bully blowhards such as Sam Pipim, David Asscherick and Kevin Paulson-but that was necessary IMO. There is no reason why we should allow them to kick us to the ground and not defend ourselves. At least that was not how I was raised. If such have no one to respond and stand up to them, they will continue their abusive, dictatorial treatment of our sector of the church.

Lana wrote:
--
I think what bothered me about this whole debate is the person who started it. David Asscherick began a mass emailing to people in the church at large.
--

First that is not what he did, he sent a letter to several leaders and it was leaked and others sent it as a viral email. Second what is wrong with sending out letters in mass, this is nothing to do with Matt 18 where a brother sins against you. This idea that people should not be able to express their opinions is completely wrong. It falls into the fundamentalist mindset not the liberal free expression mindset.

David Larson wrote:
--
This is precisely why I think we have given D.A. far more attention than he deserves and that it was a tactical mistake to take him seriously. By doing so we increased his importance and decreased ours.

How I wish that we had just ignored him, except for a very short and bland news report. Instead, we fanned this little spark of controversy until its flames became large and hot enough that the President of the General Conference felt he had to try to cool things down.
--

Again this is more of the fundamentalist mindset of bury your head in the sand and ignore the reality. Asscherick as we have seen here is not alone, he is not saying anything that Goldstein has not been saying. To ignore what is constantly going on in our churches is foolish. There has for a number of years been friction between progressive Adventists and traditional Adventists it will not go away without talking about it. If our educational system cannot stand up to the traditionalists then we will simply lose our youth and the SDA church will die off. The friction between the two sides is no doubt not helping but at least it gives our youth some hope in a compassionate and knowledgeable church. Rather then the fundamentalist church that believes they are the remnant and they therefore have all the truth and no reason to change unless it is to follow the old rules even better.

Why should not the President of the General Conference get more involved with what has been going on in the Adventist church for the last 20-30 years. What else do these people have to do. It is their job. But they are bureaucrats rather than leaders. They desire to keep whatever status quo there is so that their jobs will be safe. In a country of 1 million Adventists by some estimates there are 2 million former Adventists, they have for the most part not left Christianity they have left Adventism. Does our church really ask why, does our church do anything about the problems that caused people to leave? A few surveys and that is about it.

No hiding from problems is not the answer, talking about problems and disagreements is the only hope to deal with those things.

Ron

OK Bevin,

The textbooks I have are early to mid 1990s, so if you recommend I need newer ones than that, then I will look into it further.

Yes my geometry is rusty by now, if you tell me that mirroring was the wrong word I'll defer to you on that I did acknowledge from the very beginning that I accept it to be fully proven anyway. My point of bringing it out again was that there were other ways to address the problem. In my last post, did I not properly acknowledge why you first wrote it?

But you are taking stuff out of context now. "You are asking how increased complexity OF THE GENES is an advantage" I only said that in response to "natural selection" being thrown at me as the answer to my original question.

That is not an adequate representation of my question. That is only a subset of my question. Polyploidy is only a small part, but I did try to redirect you back to my original intended question. My question still needs answering. You demolished your own straw man very nicely.

"Evolution does not require a single cell amoeba to outsurvive a diamond. It requires them to be able to reproduce - after that, the parent can die. It is not a question of durability."

Not 'nonsense'. I never thought you claimed that an amoeba evolved from a diamond. Quite the reverse, I suggested that a diamond is not complex, although very ordered.

"It is not a question of durability"

I am trying to understand the framework for what you define as 'advantageous'. That was your word, in disagreement with my word 'luck'! How do you define advantageous? In the context of evolution and natural selection, I thought that it meant that it was less likely to die - I honestly thought that durability was involved! The things can't reproduce if they are dead.

But I will accept that ability to reproduce is an additional requirement!

"(a) be conveyed to other people, and (b) be difficult to knock over."

Yes I am trying for a). Thank you for showing me how you understand me. It is actually quite different than what I intend. So I am correct that we do misunderstand each other. A lot of other people do understand me a lot easier than you do. That is what puzzles me. You are obviously very intelligent, maybe more than me, but there is some sort of barrier there with me communicating with you.

As for b) I am happy if you can knock them over easily, I will learn either way. My ideas have had some thought put into them but I don't always express them in the best language, and straw men get thrown back at me. And unless I explicitly pose them as hypotheticals they are genuine questions. We keep chasing after red herrings. And my original question is yet to be answered!

Don,
Thanks, I will get back to you tomorrow.

Lana,

Not wanting to digress further from the topic of this thread, I just today received an email from the Amazing Facts Bible school signed by Doug Batchelor. It is his view of the problems with versions based on manuscripts other than the Textus Receptus. Perhaps you need not be too concerned about David A. mandating which Bible is safe to use. Apparently, Doug Batchelor would like to see us all being faithful to the KJV.

Of special interest are his comments on the discovery of the Sinaiaticus in a waste basket.

If you have a special interest in the subject of NT textual criticism and have an email you would like to share, I'll be happy to send it to you.

It is not a private communication but a document prepared by Doug for use in the Bible school.

The reason for preferring the KJV is because not only has it been proved far less accurate than newer translations, it is the only one that can "prove" Adventism's pillar from Dan. 8:14:

"And he said unto me, unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed" (KJV).

"until two thousand three hundred EVENINGS AND MORNINGS have gone by; then the sanctuary shall have its rights restored" (Jerusalem).

"And he said to me, 'For 2300 EVENINGS AND MORNINGS then the holy place will be properly restored" (NASB).

All of the later translations since the KJV are more accurate as the translators had access to manuscripts unavailable in the 17th century.

Any time a major pillar of doctrine must rely on an inaccurate and faulty translation, there will be a natural hesitancy to accept the better ones now available.

As to Batchelor's "revelation" of the Sinaictiucs, this has been known by biblical scholars since its discovery in the 19th century!

In the interest of furthering NT textual criticism among those who never properly finished high school, including myself, I will open the floodgates of knowledge. Doug believes that the Sinaiaticus was found in a waste basket because the monk's of St. Catherine's believed it to be rubbish. Considering that they were burning pages of it in a stove or oven, who can dispute that?

>"It is not a question of durability"
>
>I am trying to understand the framework for what you define >as 'advantageous'.

The ONLY thing that matters is survivability. Intent to survive is not required - merely that it does survive.

In order to survive something must be
(a) created
(b) continue to exist

Diamonds are hard to create (pun), and hard to destroy.

Self-replicating organisms have evolved a variety of different mechanisms that, by chance, increase the overall survival of their descendents

- move fast, even though it means must eat more
- move slow, but be poisonous
- move slow, be delicious, but have a seed that passes through the digestive tract and uses the eater to spread you

- eat something other organisms aren't
- eat the same thing as everyone else, but eat it first

- be heavily armored, even though it means must eat more
- be light, but be faster and eat less

- produce few offspring, and protect them carefully
- produce many offspring

- be big
- be small

- live long, and produce many offspring
- die while mating, so the female can eat you for nutrition

- mutate quickly, to search for new niches
- mutate slowly, to avoid losses

- be brave
- be cowardly

- be smart
- be dumb

- sleep lots
- never sleep

The only thing that matters is the likelyhood of descended genes surviving...

/Bevin

> Doug believes that the Sinaiaticus was found in a waste basket because the monk's of St. Catherine's believed it to be rubbish. Considering that they were burning pages of it in a stove or oven, who can dispute that?

You mean, sort of like discovering a copy of the Clear Word Bible in an archaeological dig, and then treating it as canonical...

/Bevin

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE ?

Decades afterwards my son told me how hurt he felt, how ridiculed when in preschool SS class he had asked the "Aunt" something about some animals and some days of the "very six days" and she answered with what he (most probaably correctly) understood as a sponatneous silly lie. It was the age when he earnestly asked me on a Sabbath afternoon "how something can be that has not become". With about ten he studied the (highly church recommended) Withcomb - Morris book and asked me about errors, allegedly false explanations and clear contradictions.

Then a book was published by some SDA Division (!) Bible Study Institute (!), written by a teacher of Biology in one of "our" schools, a man - to his own words - with keen interest in scientific problems. The laws of thermodynamics were poorly interpreted and obviously not quite understood by him. Some quite astonishing, better : sensational new "discoveries" came from a letter to the editors of some evangelical student paper just as an opinion, as the third step of searching for the sources showed. The proclamation of new scientific insights that radioactive decay is not at all steady but can be influenced by external physical conditions - was nowhere to be found in nuclear physics.

He never was in school on Sabbath; if the final college exam would have been on Sabbath in June, he would have applied for another special term in fall.

He studied Physics (Summa cum laude), then Biochemistry (Summa cum laude). Some found, the new "intellectual" young pastor would be the right man for him : That was the point of (no re?)turn. The pastor approached him with the Red Books and presented the compulsory explanations about earthquakes and volcano eruptions by the fossiles getting afire.

In my toast at the dinner on occasion of his first doctorate I reminded him of thw question he had asked me as a little boy : He still had found no answer, neither I can answer it.

Raphael, the grandson, every Sabbath morning is well groomed and prepared for Sabbath School. I hope and pray that nobody will tell him a cheap lie for just having an answer for everything.

By the way, did not some thinker centuries ago already
postulate that God necessarily has to be beyound the categories of Time and Space ? So the whole universe could have been cerated in 0.00000000000000000000001 nanoseconds ?

gerhard

A very compelling sad story. Why is it so difficult to say: "I don't know!" "Let see what we can learn form reliable sources--if such exist. It could be nobody knows as yet!"

"The best place to start would be: What we do know or understand to be known and go from there."

Why do teeth move? How do teeth move? Nobody knew even in 1964. Then a Dr. Frost applied piezoelectricity to bone healing. I and others immediately applied it to tooth movement. By Golly Bone appostion and bone resorption follow the rules of peizoelectricity. It didn't change orthodontics, except to better understand the process and the transmission of forces and the proper range of effective force.

Orthodontics of a crude sort was known in early Roman times, honed in the days of the French Revolution and still being prefected.

We know in part! Tom

> Doug believes that the Sinaiaticus was found in a waste basket because the monk's of St. Catherine's believed it to be rubbish. Considering that they were burning pages of it in a stove or oven, who can dispute that?
------------

Ok I have more to say which I will post later, but one thing I think Doug might need to realize. First just because the monks thought it was rubbish doesn't mean it was an inaccurate manuscript. He seems to forget something that might have bearing on this, could the monks read? Some couldn't read, so that might be the reason for the burning.

My impression from reading The Great Controversy was that The Bible had been written and assembled by the Apostles and then passed off to the Waldensians who hid it with them when they were in the mountains. I'm not sure how Luther got a copy.

There is an abundance of information on the Sinaiticus manuscripts on the web, which should be consulted.

As to the GC story? For those who got their "early Christian history" from this one source, it is pretty stunted indeed. But then, I think that was written tongue in cheek. Maybe it was part of the Da Vinci Code? :-)

The SDA church is reaping the results of creating converts based on propositional truths. Many, if not most converts from its inception, were formerly Christians of other persuasions so they had to be converted to the "testing truths" of the Sabbath, the IJ, and soon second coming--all were based on peculiar interpretations of Scripture, largely from the OT.

When education became more widespread and studies in the Bible and its compilation became common knowledge, those doctrines presented as "Present Truth" soon turned into a hodgepodge of eisegesis, poor translations and selective picking of a text here and a text there to make a pastiche resembling a painting by Picasso, or Munch's "Scream," with its frightening impression intended to hurriedly get people to the baptismal tank.

Why should anyone now be astonished when those stalwart pioneers have been shown to have feet of clay; or that the wizards behind the curtain in Silver Spring no longer frighten anyone with their warnings of apostasy or loss of their souls? It is the inevitable result of an educated group that when they eventually discover that
they have been sold a bill of goods, that they reject it all?

Your always such a ray of sunshine Elaine....

Elaine

I read Michael as a crude bit of scarcastic commentary, as is his want. To me, you are right as rain! Thank you. I pity an educated person as Michael set himself forth as, is so crude and so biased on such poor evidence. Other than Doug, hensen, I can think of no other contemporaries that damage the SDA image as those three.

On the other hand, one sees the liberal thinkers in Adventism moving more and more towards Hans Kung.

Why not John R. W. Stott whose Basic Christianity should be the primer of all SDA theologians.

Naturally, Jesus on the road to Emmaus, took the history and the myths of Hebrew history and applied them to Himself. The Gospels and the Epistles are built upon that revelation as reinforced by the live, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Rather, Adventism would build on the errors and gamesmanship of Ellen White to build a castle in the sand. Even Neal Wilson couldn't hold the water back for long. Jan Paulsen is merely trying to put his finger in a dike that is a mile wide. Tom

" Many, if not most converts from its inception, were formerly Christians of other persuasions so they had to be converted to the "testing truths" of the Sabbath, the IJ, and soon second coming--all were based on peculiar interpretations of Scripture, largely from the OT. "

I haven't attended a Revelation seminar lately, but are SDA evangelists still using the term "investigative judgment"? Just curious.

But I agree with your statement, Elaine.

Tom,

Adventists do not what to be "Basic Christians" but a special "remnant" who alone, has the Present Truth. If they preached Christ and him crucified, as did Paul, they would only be simply "Christians." They seem to revel in being both peculiar and different.

Thanks Tom, Wm Blake, Zane, Chris & Dave Larson,

Yes, cost counting is an important consideration. I must admit that after the reported exchange with Eder Blincoe, any hopes I harbored of squeaking through the seminary after that were summarily dashed.

Tom, it was a contribution albeit a largely unacknowldged one. Few have paused to consider how an obscure southern California minister suddenly began making astounding discoveries into the literary dependency of Ellen White in 1979, having all of the relevant volumes on hand ;)

A few vignettes from personal experience come to mind at present I’d like to share:

After graduation with a BA, my son volunteered for the Peace Corps. His proficiency in French, interest in world cultures and strong social conscience accelerated the processing of his application so he was already at his post in Niger, West Africa within ninety days. Jon learned the Hausa language via French. He told us this story part way through his 32 month assignment in the Niger bush:

One day a villager came up to him, asking what he was reading. After Jon’s response, the villager next inquired which language it was. When Jon indicated it was French, his questioner asked incredulously, “Why are you reading when you already know the language?”

--

My wife and her sisters all pursued AS degrees in Nursing, Heidi at Southern (then SMC) and her sisters at Southwestern. They have all practiced nursing for more than 25 years. With our youngest child now in college, Heidi decided she finally was at a place in her life where she could earn her BSN while continuing to work full time. With her first classes under her belt, she shared her goal with her siblings. One sister immediately asked, “Have you learned anything you didn’t already know?”

--

In February 1979, our Old Testament Archaeology class at Andrews took a bus trip to Chicago to see the antiquities of the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago. Siegfried Horn, the eminent SDA archaeologist, considered that modest museum, “the best general collection of Near Eastern artifacts in the United States.”

There, I thoughtfully stood beside the colossal Winged Guardian (which had been removed from King Sargon II’s palace in Khorsabad), admiring its detail. When I noticed the stacked pairs of bullhorns crowning the head of this gigantic cherub, I immediately sought out Professor Larry Geraty. With all of those imaginative and dreadful evangelistic illustrations of the beasts of Daniel and Revelation sprouting horns every which way, I marveled why attention had apparently not been noted as to how ordered the horns may have actually appeared. Blue eyes sparkling, Dr. Geraty flashed a sheepish grin.

For some, the purpose of education at the collegiate level appears to be to reinforce what one already knows, had assumed and/or ardently believed. For others, the goal of university education is to broaden perspectives, widening one’s knowledge base far beyond the bounded horizons of one’s upbringing. For my money’s worth, I would hope that the college experience fires the imagination and stretches the mind rather than serving to rubber stamp an insular, perhaps provincial point of view.

I can report that to really press the envelope in my case, I reached beyond the seminary classroom lectures. In that stimulating milieu, I unwittingly turned my world upside down, seeking a quantum leap in knowledge and awareness. After all, the meter was running and I would have the balance of my life to draw upon my information gathering and synthesize my findings. I did my own independent research, initiated extensive one on one dialogs with certain of my professors and pursued the answers to probing questions. That heady approach landed me into trouble with those guarding the status quo; but I wouldn’t exchange that exuberant experience for a safer and mediocre attainment.

We can shake our heads in dismay at that Niger villager who seemed to convey a lack of understanding of progressive knowledge. Or we can feel satisfied that we have learned enough that we settle into complacency--convinced that we know it all, oblivious to cutting edge findings that could move us a far distance forwards beyond our present understanding.

A year or so ago, I was amused to see yet another buffoonish representation of the fanciful beasts of Daniel and Revelation arrive in my mailbox. The cartoon images of these creatures with the random sprouting horns were still being circulated, as uninformed by archaeology as ever. I wondered if the SDA evangelist whose picture appeared on that brochure along with a glowing thumbnail resume of this world traveler’s in depth knowledge of things Biblical, had ever gazed upon the antiquities of the Oriental Institute or the British Museum in his globetrotting, if not thoughtfully reviewed Pritchard’s “Ancient Near East Anthologies of Texts and Pictures.” Probably not…

Bruce

Bruce,

Your comments should be noted by all those who post here. That innate curiosity that never leaves us sated but always wanting to learn more, is foreign to some folks, it seems. As long as there are new areas to explore, life will always be a wonderful adventure.

I am so grateful that although I will be 85 in a few months, that I have traveled quite widely and seen many of the world's treasures, but not nearly all, but there are so many books to be read, so many new ideas to explore, that life will never be boring.
If there is an addiction to learning, who wants to find a cure?

Bruce, Elaine

well, I am just 71. Life was and still is a fascinating adventure. Many have given and still give and share with me an insight of their life, experiences, hopes, disappointments, troubles, phantasies - of their little great world they live in. There are places, libraries, days, evenings, nights, and mankind.

Once I wanted to retire with 57 (theoretically this could have been possible) and study Hebrew/Aramaic ( I gave myself four years with at least a three hour study daily ) to get a glance of this strange world by the Psalms,Proverbs Job, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, the Prophets (NOT about Daniel 8 : 14 !)

Well, now I am satisfied with meditations on I Cor 15 : 47 -
the first man "ek ghs", out of the Gaia, the Ge, the Mother Earth, clay - - the second man is from heaven.

G.

Bevin,

Maybe you need to help me understand how to adequately describe increasing complexity, because it is not so easy. Is it so arbitrary that it really is an illusion? Or is there an adequate way to describe it? I happen to think it is a real thing, because I can point to plenty of examples of it, and in all sorts of different forms.

Perhaps for me to accept evolution is to accept that I am deluded about complexity. But then to accept that I am deluded, how do I know that accepting evolution would not be equally deluded? Not really, just playing around. I've been wrong about plenty of things before.

Don,

Sorry, my set theory is rusty. I need you to explain further where you are headed with that. I've not deconstructed this that far as to set theory, so we'll see how we go - you might teach me something. I am happy to learn. I will put forward my strongest case to the best of my ability in this format.

Complexity. Yes complex. I'll try not to be an Eeyore. I suggest that recognizable function is roughly correlated with physical form - but increasing complexity of physical form does not necessarily give rise to increasing complexity of function. I agree that the word complexity is complex to define.

Let me say that I think soup is not very complex and humans are very complex. Of course, I can see that this is partly limited to what we can recognize. But function is a real thing. Yes it is 'soft', it is the same as the difference between mind and brain. But mind, the function of the brain is definitely real, and it is something that soup definitely does not have. Soup may have the same degree of ordering and/or number of elements in its set as a brain does - if purely deconstructed to the physical. But soup does not give rise to this function (relation?) of mind. There are many attributes to life that we could use as examples of the complexity in life that we marvel at. Can you help me define this complexity in simpler terms?

Why do I compare soup with human? Because according to naturalistic history, there was no humans a long time ago, but there was lots of soup - there was nothing more complex than soup. And now there is lots of humans and they are a lot more complex than soup - and there is lots of life that all of it is more complex than soup. And I was under the impression that evolution described a process of soup becoming all this life, including humans. OK that is grossly simplifying it - but I hope you understand where I am coming from.

The evidence presented to me makes me ask the question, how did this complexity arise from less complex? What mechanisms or process can have resulted in this increasing complexity? Natural selection and random mutation are posed as one potential answer.

Natural selection by itself, (as I so rashly pointed out before, sorry about the shortness of that remark), does not lead to any increase in complexity - actually it reduced complexity - it is death. Perhaps it does leave the tougher to survive - as long as the tougher ones existed and were not wiped out. So on average, this process is harmful for life, by itself! And in observable history, this mostly leads to extinctions - and the fact is that the planet is losing species at a fast rate of knots.

Now, we also have mutations, very tiny little slow gradual changes. Not just any mutations will do, but the mutations have to be beneficial and hereditary. And, to get this diversity, that we see, these mutations also need to be novel as well. I am supposed to believe that these novel tiny changes occur at a rate of knots faster than extinctions?

Do you see what I am weighing up here? Rate of extinctions vs rate of beneficial hereditary mutations. Observable history shows me that mutations of novel functionality are not happening fast enough to keep up with extinctions. What conclusions should I come to based on observable history?

Observable history matches what I would expect from the second law of thermodynamics.

This is why I find evolution unlikely! It seems to me that the mechanisms of evolution are not sufficient to describe the amount of complexity. Hypothetically possible, maybe, but I do not have much faith in it.

Bruce, While the illustrations on a D+R brochure may seem ridiculous to someone who has visited the Oriental Institute , there are numerous people who find the illustrations quite fascinating. A few are fascinated enough to attend the meetings. I took a friend to a Revelation seminar, a matriarchal member of an esteemed family of professionals. She offered not a complaint, and was quite fascinated by what she heard.

I, personally, would much prefer to hear James Sanders speak, if given a choice between him and Doug Batchelor. There are many people, however, who would not be impressed at all by Jim Sanders. Doug has a message that would speak to their hearts, rather than their minds.

I recently listened to Doug's testimony on Youtube. I understand exactly what he was talking about as he described the emptiness and meaninglessness of his life, prior to becoming a Christian. I heard a Jewish Rabbi describe a similar emptiness in the life of those who know not the [Jewish] God.

I have heard a similar cry from Chinese people who are struggling with the sins of their flesh.

When you think about the life of John, one can not but be amazed at the blessings he realized through his association with Christ. The promise of eternal life, incredible divine revelations on Patmos, a view of Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration.

On the other hand, we have Judas, a lover of money who betrayed the Messiah for a few coins, commited suicide and likely had his guts ripped out by dogs who drank his blood.

Both had similar opportunities.

It's always a mystery to me why some of us go down the Judas path while others the path John walked. While Doug is a seriously flawed individual, as are most of us, there is little question in my mind which path he hopes to lead people along. There are others who are busily leading people down that other path, the one which ended, or perhaps commenced, with their own spiritual suicide.

I had the unfortunate experience of reading part of an Anne Rice book about the vampire LeStat. When he is describing how he became a vampire, he sayshe sold his soul to the Devil in exchange for eternal life.

As a Christian, that had to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard, selling one's soul to the Devil in hope of living forever. Numerous people, even among those who should know better, often strike a similar bargain. I wonder why. Certainly not God's fault.

Chris,

I am not a biologist and cannot argue with you about the issue of increasing biological complexity except in the most general terms. The point I was trying to make is that we don't know what we are talking about when we use the words "complexity" and "order" in that context.

I gave you definitions of mathematical order rather tongue-in-cheek. I'm not "going" anywhere with it all--it's just an example of what order means mathematically, which may or may not have anything to do with the kind of order you and others were talking about earlier in the thread. I have never heard of a mathematical definition of "complexity", but if it exists, it probably would not help with the biological question.

The beauty of mathematics is that we start from undefined terms, add axioms, and then all the rest follows from logic. In a certain sense, mathematics is the only discipline in which we always know what we are talking about (though there are problems at the foundations, as Russell pointed out).

But I do think that if we really want to discuss complexity and order in a hard-nosed scientific way, we would need a serious attempt at definitions. I'm sure somebody out there has tried to do it, but I don't know anything about it.

I have just one comment about progress in evolution, which seems so counter-intuitive to you and a lot of other people. The mathematical study of fractals, pioneered by Benoit Mandelbrojt, produces surprising patterns by the repetition of (very) simple processes. The processes that are iterated do not seem complex--they may be quite simple-- but the structures they generate appear to be highly complex, even well-designed.

I think the lesson is that we should not be too dogmatic about the impossibility of what appears to be more complex arising from what appears to be less complex (whatever complexity means).

I have one other comment on the issue of the corruption of our perceptions (original sin?). I think the orthodox Christian doctrine is that Adam's sin corrupted us morally and perhaps also intellectually. The moral corruption has been said to be absolute and total--to the extent that outside intervention, from a redeemer, is necessary for salvation.

But I don't think that orthodoxy claims that our ability to perceive scientific reality has been utterly or totally corrupted. The success of the scientific enterprise, which depends intimately on human ability to apply logical argument to human observations, is evidence that whatever corruption there is of this kind, is not absolute or total. Your scheme of accommodation between a short-chronology creation with evolution seems dangerously close to claiming that it is.

Again, my position is that I accept scientific evidence and I also am a follower of Jesus, and I pray. I do not think there is a conflict between these. That, of course, is an article of faith, based on the idea that the same Creator speaks both through science and through the person of Jesus.

Don

Hansen

There is another threed active on this same blog site on fear.

Why is it that if people are fearly enough to "sell" their souls to the devil, that the evangelistic approach to the fearful is through Revelation?

I made three assault landings on hostile beaches in the South Pacific. I was point man, unarmed, on several missions.

I had committed to memory many Bible texts in my years in Church School, Academy, and E.M.C.

Never, once prior to during, or after those moments and hours of quiet terror, did I quote a text from the Book of Revelation. The Psalms, (23; 46, 91) were the top three, the Lord's Prayer was a constant.

Surely the walking wounded, the hungry souls, those starving for assurance--need a balm, living water, and bread of life not found in: "Who is the Beast?"; "What is his mark?" "What does coming up out of the water mean? What does coming up out of the land mean?" What do the saved do while Satan is bound for a 1000 years?"

"Why would watching the wicked burn give one courage in battle?"

How does a Revelation Seminar compare with: "Yea, though I walk thrugh the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me: thy rod and thy staff they comfort me."?

Yes, I have invited dear friends to evangelistic services at the Augusta Seventh-day Adventist Church. They sat, they listened, they never said a word. I never was so embarrassed in my life. My friends were active Methodists--still are, thank God. Thankfully we are still friends.

If a friend asked me today if they should attend a Revelation Seminar, I would ask: "Are you of sound mind? Do you believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and coming King? If they answered either Yes or No, I would say: Don't go!

If they asked why? I would say: "There is no there, there!" Tom

Rate of extinctions vs rate of beneficial hereditary mutations. Observable history shows me that mutations of novel functionality are not happening fast enough to keep up with extinctions.

This is partially a result of impressions from the media, and partially a result of the difference between how extinctions occur and how species arise.

Species go extinct very quickly. It only takes one generation.

Species come into existence very quietly - it can be one generation, but more commonly it is many.

There is a current major dramatic ecology change going on due to the arrival of homo-sapiens with machines, and this is putting a lot of stress on existing species - so you are seeing the possible loss of very visible species - polar bears for example.

But such big changes are rare. Normally the status quo continues for millions of years, and the genetic drift that forms new species happens then, populating the niches created by the changes.

/Bevin

bevin

Very interesting, Your entry sounds like a plea for responsible custodialship on the part of man. What happened to the survival of the fittest? Tooth and claw just don't cut it anymore?

You sound almost like Genesis: God giving man dominion!

Telephone and telegraph wires killed the passenger pigeon--progress is progress. Imagine the people in California having to wait four weeks to find out what happened to the governor of South Carolina. Or we in Georgia waiting as long to learn that Ed and Farrett died. The pigeons jsut had to go!
Tom

Don,

You said, you "don't think that orthodoxy claims that our ability to perceive scientific reality has been utterly or totally corrupted"

I didn't mean utterly or totally. Although I agree, the hypothetical model that I posed was an extreme, and one point being that we don't have any basis to draw that line really.

Belief in any miracles suggests that our scientific knowledge of reality is not necessarily as rigidly coherent as we think it is.

My aim was to explore the line between faith and science. How much can science be used to falsify faith? On first inspection, there tends to be this popular idea that science can falsify faith - taken to the extreme is Richard Dawkins and Co. Science has multiple layers of being able to convince. It is not all mathematical logic - there is a lot of inference and theory, a lot of persuasion, which may be adequate for me to trust my car (mostly my car works, but not infallibly), but not adequate enough for me to stake my eternal life on.

My original point to you was that if we see thorns on roses, it does not follow necessarily that God created an imperfect world. There was a change that orthodoxy does claim resulted in a change to our physical world. That creation would have appeared different before the fall, and that recreation/resurrection will be different to what life is now. If you mean by orthodoxy, traditional belief in the Bible? The moral fall resulted in physical imperfections - some how. To what extent did that change occur? How can we know where to draw the line?

PS. You say 'moral' fall. Even if you deconstruct the 'moral' fall, for us to have fallen morally must have resulted from a fall to our brain machinery physical. If we are going to deconstruct in scientific terms, 'fall' can be deconstructed to mean nothing. Yet, we see that we are in a fallen state and in need of our Saviour.

I rejoice that we both call on Christ as our Saviour.

Tom, It seems that you are moving toward an attack on the book of Revelation itself. Did all those years you devoted to serving Rome at Marquette make you uncomfortable dealing with Protestant apocalypticism and the scandal of popery?

I can understand why you might have been embarrassed bringing friends to a Revelation seminar. The seminars handle Rome roughly sometimes. Your friends, no doubt being intelligent people, must have understood the incongruity of your work in behalf of a papal institution while decrying Rome as the whore of Babylon.

An acquaintance of mine, rightly described as an outrageous woman, attended SDA church after taking LSD. She described the preachers face changing before her eyes, one side of his face demonic, the other angelic. He lied out of the demonic side of his mouth and spoke the truth out of the angelic side.

Perhaps your friends were becoming confused about which side of the face was which.

Hansen:

I never responded to your 6/23/09 8:36 post. I see your point, and you make a good one. The Adventist church is playing games with membership, and fellowship probably counts for as much or more than membership. My sense of it is that this is more a problem at the local church level. I find it chilling that someone like Elaine would be invited to teach a Sabbath School class. I would think that membership, at a minimum, would be a requirement for a Sabbath School teacher. I wonder if Elaine doesn't dial it back a bit for SS, as opposed to the more wide-open Spectrum forum.

(A lady who goes to my church also occasionally attends Irvin Taylor's SS class at Loma Linda. I had to explain to her that Irvin made his living doing C14 testing at UC Riverside, and is obviously fully committed to the long-ages geo-chronology. She didn't know this, which makes me think that maybe Irvin and his friends dial it back for Sabbath School.)

My sense of independent ministries like Amazing Facts is that they are generally very good, although not directly connected with the church structure. I have more respect for the Adventist Right than the Adventist Left, because the Adventist Right goes off and starts their own self-supporting ministries, like Weimar and Heartland, but the Aventist Left wants to keep living off of tithe-supported institutions, even while undermining the doctrines that most tithepayers hold dear.

I think you're partially right that a similar type of hermeneutic used to justify female pastors is being used on the Darwinism and homosexuality fronts. But I think the scriptural obstacles in those last two cases are much steeper, and hence the demanded critique of Scripture must be much more radical and comprehensively destructive of biblical faith.

Bevin,

Science's answer to the fall of man.

Thank you for your answers.

Hansen

Nuts.

Tom

P.S. Hansen

The Book of Revelation was written to give a group of first century Christians hope and courage under the persecution of Roman Ceasars and the impact of a variety of heresies.

If you want to understand the book of Revelation please read John R. W. Stott's Book What Christ has to Say (think of) to the Churches. It will give you the context of the book.

My years at Marquette were rich and full. As were my years at LLU. I got my theology from my dad, Edward Heppenstall, Otto Christiansen, Lynn Wood, A. Graham Maxwell, H.M.S. Richards, Paul Heubach, John R. W. Stott, Phillip Yancey, Fred Craddock,
Dan McCall, and Leslie Holmes and in that order as they unfolded the Gospels and the Epistles of Paul.

I was embarrassed because the evangelist preached like you write full of himself, bombastic, critical, and sarcastic, with a shallow understanding of Scripture, history, or the plan of Salvation of God as found in John and Paul or even Revelation. In a word of two it was the pompous self-righteousness of the man that turned me off. He sounded like a kid on the street saying ya, ya, ya, my Dad can beat up on your dad. So now you know. Tom

Chris,

No - science's answer to why the earth looks the way it does

I wonder if empathy has anything to do with it. Ever since I was about 7 years old, I played chess. To win. Never occurred to me to worry about how my opponent felt about it. As a parent, the standard line in my family was "if you want sympathy, see your mother; if you want the problem solved, see your father".

You are letting your theology drive your science. Theology is supposed to describe the real world, not create a fake one.

/Bevin

re: Hansen

I have got to believe this person is a "troll" - someone who enjoys provoking people by making outrageous statements without regard to truth.

Tom,

I've been reading your comments over the past few weeks and I have to say thank you. I may not agree with all you say, but more than anything I value HOW you say it---the best sermon I've gotten in a long time....

Thank you, Becci. I needed that!

In a debate, nasty gets no points. In a conversation, nasty is a turn off. In an inquiry, nasty is a detour, In evangelism, nasty, is a loser. It a blog, nasty has a lot to learn about all of the above.

Seldom has anyone preached about the second "lost son". That was the one that Jesus was trying to reach. We have so many second lost sons with word processors and so little understanding of their need for healing. They just keep on throwing self righteous mud and patting themselves on the back with dirty hands. Tom

Chris,
A very long time ago you asked me:

"Abiogenesis aside, from then on, there must have been increasing complexity to get to human. Where did this come from if evolution fails to explain it?"

I'm certainly not arguing that in some lines of evolution we haven't seen increasing complexity. And for the first part of evolutionary history, increasing complexity was everywhere, probably mostly because it gave an advantage and perhaps partly because it is difficult to go more simple when you are dealing with something so simple to begin with.

It is interesting to note though that the common belief is that the overall mode of complexity hasn't changed since early in evolution because so much of our biomass is made up of simple organisms which haven't become more complex. We pay way too much attention to large complex creatures (like humans) and thus have a biasing sample when it comes to what is actually out there - mostly simple organisms.

Following the human lineage, clearly we see increasing complexity. But this is not true for all lineages. Sea sponges have not evolved more complexity since the Cambrian time. And there are many many other examples of things where we see species changes and form changes but not necessarily greater complexity.

In other words, there is not a push towards greater complexity overall in evolution. Everything is most certainly not becoming more complex as time goes on. We see examples of creatures with greater complexity in some lines - most notably ours. And we see early in evolutionary history many things becoming more complex than the simple organisms from which they arose (although we still have examples of the simple organisms around too though somewhat different).

It's not that simple organisms become extinct while complex ones live on. Simple can be good too. Complexity can give an advantage but not necessarily. And so complexity is not always selected for over simple.

And if your question is actually geared more towards, how does evolution account for complexity - there is no way that can be explained in a simple post (or maybe I should say I can't explain it simply.) Entire careers are built around addressing that. Suffice it to say that it is not something that evolutionary biologists think is a stumbling block.

Beth

Your extended explanation is the result of the frustrations of evolutionists to prove progress. The first burst of enthusiasm was explicitly toward progression. It was Darwinianism that thrust Hilter's "Master Race." It has been the prime mover in eugenicis (1883). Now, of course, it is simply mutation, diversity, and adaptation. Even the classic pictures of a black moth during the coal age of Scotland and then the white moth following the cleaning up of the air was been discredited--once a prime example of evolution. Now, of course, it is recognized that birds could spot white moths in a coal ladened air and black moths in clean air. Yes of course the survivial of the most fit or adaptable!

Go with the flow! It is a good ride at least. Tom

Tom, Most of the theologians you mention are unknown to me. Adventist theologians labored under a heavy burden, being compelled to tow an unBiblical line while supposedly interpreting the Bible.

Dr. Graham Maxwell, for instance. Unquestionably a charming and gracious man, he understood Romans well, yet his emphasis did not bring to mind the theology of Romans. His "God is our Friend" emphasis I did not find especially helpful.

Of course, my knowldege of his work was limited to tapes and the SDA Commentary on Romans, so I may have well missed his better moments.

In general, most Adventist theologians were themselves too confused about justification to teach it clearly. Morris Venden, for example, was well known as a source of justification teaching in the 70's, yet I never heard anything remotely close to the clarity of Des Ford's approach to the subject.

While Des is now primarily villified for attacking 1844, it is an unspeakable tragedy that his Biblically based teachings on justification are not better known. Had the chuch rallied round the cross rather than the investigative judgment, Adventism would have a far more glorious story to tell.

His justification perspective would have destroyed legalism and perfectionism in Adventism. It may have well prevented the seething apostasy that is bubbling over in certain places within the Adventist community. People who are enamored with Christ are not going to destroy Him with overt attacks on Scripture, Creation, the Incarnation, and other elements of His life.

Even those who tenaciously to the creation narrative are not necessarily Christian. Many Jews are creationists. Among Adventist Creationists are also those who cling to unBiblical Scriptural teachings regarding perfection and legalism.

It is nearly impossible to find a middle ground in Adventism.

Tow=toe

Hansen

If by chance you have even one volume of the SDA Bible Commentary open to the back of the second page and find the list of editors and contributors:

You will find Raymond Cottrell, Edward Heppenstall, Otto Christensen, A. Graham Maxwell, and Lynn Wood. If by chance you subscribe to Ministry Mag. you will find Leslie Holmes as a frequent contributor. If you have any knowledge of Church history you would know the H.M.S. Richards Sr. was the founder of The Voice of Prophecy. I knew and sat at the feet of 16 others listed as contributors to the SDA Bible Commentary. However they did not have the same impact on my understanding as the ones I listed.

Your dismissal of Graham Maxwell sounds pretty thin--about third or fourth hand if that.

Dan McCall is a local Augusta, Ga. retired pastor and a personal friend that you could not have known.

My point was and is that there are Christian Scholars within and without of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who not only had a firm grasp of salvational truth but had an extraordinary ability to share in a winsome fashion the Gospel.

Neal Wilson tore such a hole in the side of the Ark of Safety that even Jan Paulsen can't plug it. Tom

"My point was and is that there are Christian Scholars within and without of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who not only had a firm grasp of salvational truth but had an extraordinary ability to share in a winsome fashion the Gospel."

Perhaps so. I wouldn't want to take away from anyone any blessing they received.

The voices of those men are silent now, Tom. In their place we have Doug Batchelor, David A, and whoever else can ride a horse into camp. Elder Richards was primarily known as an evangelist, although he was certainly a scholar. Doug is probably the closest thing to him Adventism has nowadays, in terms of popularity and public profile.

The glory days of the VOP, with the Kings Heralds and Del Delker are gone, Tom. HMS Richards is probably unknown to most recent converts.

In their place, we have .... Doug.

I very much wish that I could share Nighdweller's optimism. Unfortunately, human history is replete with examples of people failing to learn from their mistakes, both on a personal level and on a collective level. I fear this will end very badly.

Phillip Yancey, Fred Craddock, John Stott...

Hansen...

Two of the above are recognized scholars and Yancey is a prolific author...all non-Adventist, all worth your time.

I remember you expressing a liking for Cranfield. But seeing your leanings towards justification in paricular, the late 20th c. benchmark commentary on Romans was written by Ernst Kasemann. Give him a try if you haven't already. Very dense, but again, well worth the effort. Also, Lewis Martyn's commentary on Galatians is fascinating and loaded with provocative thought.

More generally, Gorden Fee's "Paul, the Spirit and the People of God," is also a good read as well as Markus Barth's commentary on Ephesians, and N.T. Wright's "What St. Paul Really Said."

Thanks...

Frank

BTW, they certainly are a nice counter-balance to things like...Doug...as you put it. =)

Frank

I have to join with those who query- What middle ground? There is no middle ground set forth by Paulsen in this statement. To characterize it as such is to misconstrue his message.

Ultimately those who teach evolution as a fact must not be allowed to spread their pernicious message.

Beth and Bevin,

At this stage here I humbly admit that I have not looked at all of the books that you suggested for me, so I am expressing my current thoughts, knowing full well that I am not aware of the full strength of the arguments that you suggest I read. I have read a few current popular and esteemed authors who argue for evolution, so I am not just giving tripe either - these are my thoughts. So please accept my comments as sharing my current thoughts, rather than an attempt to blow anyone away!

Bevin, I am not competing with you at all levels. My ideas may be different to yours, but my longer term objective is not to beat you at a game. We share thoughts with each-other, sometimes we agree to disagree, this is meant to be a community where we are free to share our thoughts without being dogmatically blown away at every opportunity. Win at all costs, sacrifice a few pawns, sacrifice a queen, as long as we protect our King. And hopefully, we agree on protecting the same King! Ultimately, we are on the same team. Unfortunately, this sometimes becomes an afterthought between you and I, because I too get stuck in the chess paradigm of beating the opposition.

Maybe I should have listened to Ellen White, and stopped playing chess a lot sooner than I did? Perhaps you and I could actually play a real game of chess, and enjoy eachothers company. You might thrash me, but chess for me these days is about social interaction.

Sometimes I accept that disagreements might happen, but the point is that the true objective is ultimately not about beating the opposition. I would rather foster community spirit with you in the end. Winning is higher than being intellectually right or wrong at all costs. There are some costs that are too high.

Beth, Thanks for getting back to me. I was responding partly to the article that you provided the link to. Some tend to deny that there is any concept of progress in evolution - well at least an apologetic approach was the impression that web page left me with. Yet when we look at particular lines, for example as you said, the human line, then there is a line of progress that has been drawn for us.

For example this is clear on a museum wall, one might see a set of ape like images, increasing in stature and uprightness, and then finally an image of human. This portrays to my mind a line of increase, of progress.

I know that neither of us can cover it all in this thread. I guess that's why it has been an ongoing conversation with us for some time now. I have always appreciated the politeness and respect that you show me in these discussions. And your ability to understand me has been excellent, so thanks again for that. Sometimes my thoughts come from left field, and you get where they are coming from pretty quickly.

Regards to it not being a stumbling block. I never argued that I could falsify evolution, or that even there was any known scientific falsification for evolution. But, this argument reminds me of 'Argumentum ad Ignorantiam' for the existence of God. This is some foundational stuff for evolution here! I can't disprove it, therefore ... what, so am I meant to believe it?

I know that's probably not what you meant by it. But nevertheless, it's worth noting that evolutionists are using apologetic arguments like that.

Have you heard the catch cry of the atheistic positivist that goes something like this: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!" Notice that in order to prevent this from being simply an equivocation, then the word 'extraordinary' for the claim, has to be used in the same "Magisteria" as 'extraordinary' for the evidence. I'm referring to S. J. Gould's Nonoverlapping Magisteria ideas here. Where claims of creation are largely established on religious grounds, and claims of evolution are largely established on scientific grounds!

"But, these models do conflict with the physical" I imagine you thinking, just bare with me. (Except for the strange hypothetical model that I posed!)

So, I say that I think it is 'extraordinary' that we 'extraordinary' humans could have evolved from single celled soup. I also think it even more amazing about abiogenesis, but that is still off limits I am told. :) And, so I want to see 'extraordinary' scientific evidence for it coming from the scientists who make the claim.

Another funny thing about the word 'extraordinary' is that 'extraordinarity bias' is a bit of a logical fallacy, in a pure logic sense for anything under the mathematics umbrella. However I think that extraordinarity is truly required in any persuasion or convincing in all other frameworks!

So, both creation and evolution are subject to confirmation bias! One philosophy driven by the extraordinarity of life, the other philosophy driven by the meaninglessness of life.

Therefore, although the models overlap in a physical scientific sense in theory, we are left with competing philosophies about origins. We only have conjecture and inference type of arguments to establish what happened in the past - because both you and I did not observe it! And we do not have pure mathematical logic to work with here - as Don Rhoads had me thinking about! So, I conclude that 'extraordinarity' becomes the requirement for convincing me in this argument. But also knowing that it is always ever only going to be established on at least some level of confirmation bias.

This is how I interpret the main approach that has been put forward to this question (i.e. Where did us extraordinary humans come from?). Deny that it is extraordinary!

This denial seems to me to be what Darwinism is all about. Deconstruct life to the point where it no longer seems extraordinary any more. Just like some want to deconstruct free-will because the brain is a machine. This is a philosophy that denies the face value interpretation of evidence as I see it for myself! Darwin establishes this philosophy very early on in his book when he talks about the extraordinarity of the eye - he uses different words, but that might give you an idea of what I am talking about - he deconstructs the amazing functions of the eye to its physical parts. This philosophy of deconstruction says that the real world that I see around me is not necessarily 'extraordinary'.

Theistic Christians are caught in the middle somewhere. They don't want to deny that we are made in the Image of God, but then evolution largely goes against that claim! A theistic Christian may say that God directed the process somehow. Well, that is just plain against what evolution teaches - because evolution tries to deconstruct the extraordinarity out of life. Richard Dawkins chases this to its atheistic conclusions about God. Evolution has no definite mechanism that drives progress, and so it is all only a matter of mathematical possibility that it might arise. Some even go so far as tell us that given the infinite combinations of possibility, then it was inevitable!? Completely ordinary and inevitably expected! There is no longer any extraordinarity that evolution has to explain.

Where is God visible in evolution? Evolutionary philosophy effectively denies extraordinarity.

Humorous point to this. Richard Dawkins, effectively deconstructs extraordinarity to inevitability, (remember this is the Darwinism approach to the original question), then he also says that he is in reverence of nature! Go figure.

He re-constructs what he has demolished for his own purposes.

But follow that further, Dawkins is also one who says "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!" referring to religious claims. Now isn't that rich? When we ask him, why is nature extraordinary, he says it was inevitable!

Bevin,

I do know that you weren't intending to give me the fall of man story in science - so I wasn't constructing any sort of argument at all out of that.

Rather, I was just sharing that is a way that what you said could be seen. I thought it interesting and wanted to share it with you. That the evolution of man's greed (sin) is the same thing that tipped the balance of nature and creation, from viable progress towards what has been observed, as you say, towards the loss of many otherwise viable species. Effectively evolution of man's greed and sin is what damaged creation. I just thought you might have appreciated the interesting analogy.

Hmm. long post again! Lots of thoughts to share tonight.

Bevin,

Oh, one more thing that I wanted to respond to. You said, "You are letting your theology drive your science."

What we see is what we get, or what we get is what we see?

Daniel Dennet says some interesting things about philosophy dictating science. He says that it is a mistake to not realize that our philosophy does dictate our science.

Also, I'm thinking about Kant's critiques of reason.

The concept of species is somewhat vague in biology - and the concept of a species existing for a long period of time is almost absurd - all breeding populations change over time.

Don't just blame man's arrival. The arrival of plants giving off O2 caused much bigger changes than humans giving off CO2 will.

Where neanderthal's also in God's image?

"Sometimes I accept that disagreements might happen, but the point is that the true objective is ultimately not about beating the opposition. I would rather foster community spirit with you in the end. Winning is higher than being intellectually right or wrong at all costs. There are some costs that are too high."

It took me a lot more years than you to learn this.

/Bevin

BEVIN:
In your June 25 post at 6:12 I understand you to make the statement that new species can flash into existence in one generation. By that I take it you mean that the parent can give birth to a daughter which is a different species than the parent. This is a new concept to me and I do not remember running into this idea before. Would you give me an example and the appropriate citation to the scientific literature supporting this point? It seems extraordinary to me if "species" has any serious meaning. Thank you.

http://spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive16-20/16-3cottrell.pdf

Seems to me that there is no doubt about evolution: it happens, we can see it happen, and it is a useful explanatory principle for many things. (The blanket condemnations of teaching evolution are misguided.)

The legitimate question is this: what, and how much, can evolution account for? 1. Can it account for the origin of life itself? 2. Can it account for the existence of elaborate structures such as ears and eyes, etc? 3. Does there have to be intervention by a Designer?

I doubt that science provides, or can provide, the answers to these questions. Atheistic evolutionists will, as an article of faith, answer "yes" to 1. and 2. and "no" to 3. Some but possibly not all believers will answer "no" to 1. and 2. but "yes" to 3.

The most disturbing thing to us believers, I suppose, is that we are not able to see where or how the Designer's activity enters into the "natural" process.

In times past, it seems, God has revealed himself at various times and in various ways--most notably through Jesus Christ.

We now live in a time when he has largely hidden himself. Perhaps Jesus was the turning point--after he came, there has been not much more revelation, because he was the ultimate revelation.

Just some musings on a Sabbath morning in southern Indiana, watching my corn grow, listening to my wife play "Morning has broken".

Don

Here's a perspective from a SS teacher in the heartland: There are two primary segments in our church today:

1. Those who have learned how to accommodate both the traditions an theology of Adventism with contemporary Western culture, the ideas of modernity, and, yes, the science of origins. These believers -- make no mistake they are still believers -- still believe in the saving power of Jesus Christ even in a world view that includes an old-earth and an Adventism with most of the purely social conventions from 19th and early 20th Centuries replaced with the contemporary.

2. Those whose view of the church, education, and Western society are more akin to 19th Century Americans than to the real 21st Century that church lives in today. So, often the members of my SS class spin fantasies that convey, in my view, a house of cards so fragile that any perturbation will destroy their faith. Most often they are wonderful human beings, but fragile. Their understanding of scripture uses extra-Biblical narratives and "facts" to create mental glue to give their fantasies a fragile coherence. Their faith cannot a accommodate change or everything falls apart.

Social institutions -- churches and governments -- seem to have a hard time adapting. So, immigration and revolutions occur. I personally don't know that Adventism could ever survive an update for a 21st Century world.

StonePost

StonePost

Unwittingly, you have given more of a self analysis than a class analysis: doubting above the crowd. The problems facing Adventism are far more serious that merely outliving its time.

It was built upon disappointment, nurished by exclusivity,
promoted by fear focused dogma, and in denial for more than a generation. The tragic part of the story is in its beginning not its ending.

James and Ellen White would have made far better Methodists than Seventh-day Adventists. They found good wine bottles and just poured in the wrong kind of spirits, until they became so ego-centric as to actually believe the stuff.

All of which was well known as far back as Battle Creek. Can you immagine an all knowing God telling "His servant" get out of Battle Creek and move to Takoma Park?

Is it not wonderful that Jesus Christ came to save people, not institutions?

There is just one question--who is responsible for the mind-set of your class members?

What do you intend to do about it? Tom

Tom-
So sad that you are so far off track about the beginnings of the SDA church and its founders. May the Holy Spirit guide you back into truth.

All the world's intellectualism is not going to save a soul.

StonePost:

I think you raise a very interesting dichotomy. I'd like to hear from you an example of the "extra-biblical narratives and 'facts'" that your class members indulge in to reinforce their house of cards.

Tom is way harder on you than he should be. He speaks ex cathedra quite a bit.

Don

"All they did was provide reasonable, calm rebuttals and counterbalance over there to fundamentalist bully blowhards such as Sam Pipim, David Asscherick and Kevin Paulson-but that was necessary IMO."

Is this how Spectrumites talk about ordained ministers of the Gospel? Maybe Kevin Paulson is not an ordained minister of the gospel but I'm quite certain the other two are. I note that Pipim, insofar as I have observed, never wastes his time in this blog. I have no doubt he could carefully debunk many of the theories put forth by the naysayers who allow evolution to be their faith. May the Good Lord lead us on the path to salvation rather than character assassination and the destruction of His Word - In the beginning ---.

Ken, it was a big surprise to me when I found out about it years ago - because it completely blew away quite a few of the anti-evolution arguments I had been exposed to...

Google for "polyploidy speciation"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Polyploidy.html

"However, the tetraploid plants can breed with each other. So in one generation, a new species has been formed."

/Bevin

"Is this how Spectrumites talk about ordained ministers of the Gospel?"

No, this is MY opinion of them and I stand by it.

Make no mistake, both Paulson and Pipim ARE aggressive, outspoken bullies, pushing their weight around Adventism, steamrolling over those Adventists who think differently, telling those of us who don't buy into their fundamentalist SDA brand to get out of the church. Ministers or not, it makes no difference. It's the truth. They won't be happy until their theological ethnic cleansing has obliterated every last trace of Evangelical/Progressive/Liberal Adventism. Their hate for us is well documented. And what was it that Paulson compared us to on the Educate Truth website? Oh, that's right - a CANCER that needs to be removed from the denomination. I feel the love already.

Asscherick, well, he may not be as arrogant, abrasive and dictatorial as the otther two, but he's still young. I'm sure he will make his mentors proud in time.

So, if you are going to attempt to make a case for a loving fuzzy version of these men, be my guest. I will laugh myself silly while you try. If nothing else, it will be entertaining.

"May the Good Lord lead us on the path to salvation rather than character assassination."

Oh, you mean like your segment of the church has systematically done to Desmond Ford at every oppourtunity? You mean like that?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

This reminds me so much of the actions of the mullahs in Iran. The progressives thought they were making progress, but it was all an illusion, and once pressured sufficiently, the mullahs spoke and now heads will roll. I think many of us were fooled into believing that because the Denver statement was only accepted by the committee rather than moved forward as a clarification to the 27 (now 28) statements of belief, that friends in high places were covering the backs of theologians and professors who openly (at Glacier View and Ogden) shared their views about the literal 6 day creation. Now, under pressure, the clarifications are coming in the form of recommended actions, and heads will roll. This is a sad day for intellectual development and academic freedom in the church. I do wonder if professional scientists (and not just employees) can now remain Adventists in good conscience. Maybe Clifford Goldstein is right--the definition of Adventist as it is being refined by conservatives leaves no more wiggle room for rational scientists (he used the term evolutionists).

This seems like one of those times when progressives need to stand tall together. If we let them pick off the biologists one by one, who will be next? Who will be left to speak when they come after you? (speaking metaphorically; I am not church-employed, thank goodness, but I still care about those who are, and I also care about my integrity if I should remain a member of a church that runs off professors teaching scientific truths I myself believe).

I hate this. (And yes, some of you can "crow"--how Christian! I see that Clifford Goldstein is gleefully dancing on Lee Greer's grave already!). I met Lee Greer when he was still a graduate student and was very impressed with his careful science and with his Christian faith (see Jesus Institute Forum for more on that). He is an impressive multidisciplinary individual who is a tremendous asset to La Sierra and the SDA Church in general. It would be unconscionable if these thugs were allowed to take him down.

David Larson, I generally agree with your postings but your post of 6/24/09 @ 12:50 was off the mark in my opinion. Beating yourself up on behalf of Spectrum and AToday, arguing that "we" brought this on ourselves by writing about it and creating a forum for discussion, reminds me of those that say "it's the woman's fault" for being raped because she dared to dress attractively. In fact, perhaps appeasing the conservative fringe for the last 30 years is what has brought us to this point. Now the "independent ministries" rule the roost, and are the strongest influencers of SDA thought among the average church member. How many people do you think listen to 3ABN and Amazing Facts compared to listen to you or read your thoughtful writings--or that of your colleagues at LaSierra and other SDA universities? I fear that we may have passed the point of no return. The revolution has occurred, and the mullahs are in control.

What saddens me especially, David, is your closing statement in that post, that you'll continue to support Spectrum/AF even if money is the only support you can give for awhile. That tells me you guys are really feeling the heat, and just like the reporters and university professors in Iran, your voice may be silenced in the face of the high cost imposed by the mullahs on those who dare to speak out in support of freedom and justice.

It may come down to a choice of letting people be picked off one by one, or else faculties and concerned laypeople standing up en masse and saying, "We won't take it anymore." If it splits the church, so be it. I don't think the conservatives would necessarily end up with ALL the toys. Anyway, I'm not in your position (thankfully), so I guess I'd better be sympathetic to the fear and concern I hear in your voice, and wish you good luck! Take care, and keep the headscarves handy...!

Hear HEAR! Now THAT'S what I'm talking about!

Some choice gems:

"This seems like one of those times when progressives need to stand tall together. If we let them pick off the biologists one by one, who will be next? Who will be left to speak when they come after you?"

A-MEN!

"In fact, perhaps appeasing the conservative fringe for the last 30 years is what has brought us to this point. Now the "independent ministries" rule the roost, and are the strongest influencers of SDA thought among the average church member."

A-MEN!

"It may come down to a choice of letting people be picked off one by one, or else faculties and concerned laypeople standing up en masse and saying, "We won't take it anymore." If it splits the church, so be it. I don't think the conservatives would necessarily end up with ALL the toys."

A-MEN!

SO much that's good in that post RT. I am going to read a couple more times and savor with relish. I especially loved this:

"It would be unconscionable if these thugs were allowed to take him down."

Bwahahaha. That's GOLD!

Ken,

The word species is completely arbitrary. Darwin himself described his disdain for this word in his book on origins - yet he full well knew that it is a required word for taxonomy nevertheless. This has been a known problem for a long time. He knew that the word species is a construction, whereas the philosophy of evolution is deconstruction. Here is the paradox that I complain about.

Every single individual could be called a new species according to deconstructive principals - so when that individual dies, you could call it an extinction of that species. Usually species is wider than that, but the process of speciation, of where the line is drawn, is purely arbitrary.

Stonepost, Don, and Your Friend!

At least you are consistent. You set yourselves up as teachers and then only complain about the stupidity of your students and "friends". It seems that teaching requires more than diagnosis. If you know someone is lacking in knowledge or understanding--the teachers' task is to enlighten. That is merely what I asked of Stonepost.

As to the history of Adventism, I have lived more than 50% of it. 11 years at E.M.C., 17 years at LLU, 11 years at Southern in one capacity or another. I have delivered the daily newspaper to more General Conference and Union Conference Officers, and Department of Religion Faculty than probably the three of you combined could even name.

I have sat on 80 or more Board of Trustee Meetings. The history you read about--I was there at the making.

Pardon me, Don! I ain't the Pope but I can read one a mile away. Take a walk and cool off!
Tom

Things are just a mess in the church right now. No one is allowed to deal with the issues openly and honestly, and the evolution question is only part of it. What kind of madness is this, where church employees have to silence their convicitons for reasons of self-preservation and professional protection? The atmosphere of paranoia and fear in this church is unmatched since the early days of Papal Rome!

For example, a fellow on the For The Gospel discussion forum made this claim in the comment section of the Ellen White And Sola Scriptura thread:

"Your comments on religion and money are insightful. I did research on Ellen White's writings--a file drawer full starting with the first vision. What I found is that not one of the so called visions could be checked out as genuine--there was always some extenuating circumstance.

EGW is on record of writing some 25 million words; it turns out that some 6 million of those words, some 1/4 of what was written, was stolen, plagiarized. This is well documented.

I took this information to an associate pastor of a major church--in fact an SDA church in which the grandson of Ellen White is the pastor. We had lunch and I layed out some of my research. The associate pastor who I will call Bill leaned back and made it very plain (I have a degree in Philosophy [Columbia University] and I have seminary training [New Theological Seminary] so the SDA ministry doesn't try to con me--they level). "Look," he said, "We know that EGW was not a prophet, but we have to maintain her position as some of the people believe it. If we didn't it would impact our constituency." Frankly this means that if the truth were made plain membership and church income would be affected--its that simple."

http://www.forthegospel.org/comment/.../4178/?quote=1

I think this is a sad state of affairs.

It's just so frustrating. All of this secrecy, duplicity and clandestine hypocrisy. It would be so much better if leaders would just come clean on these things publicly instead of maintaining a lie and exploiting the trust of the sincere membership who truly adore and venerate EGW.

I get the same angry feeling when I hear of our scholars and ministers who privately reject the IJ or 1844/Heavenly Sanctuary, but expect those of us in the pews to take the heat for pointing out the inconsistencies while they sit in their ivory towers and watch as we get dogpiled by the Traditionals.

It's not fair! We non-conservatives need more people in high positions of administration and influence to side with us, we need more pastors to take a public stand against the problem areas that we KNOW are there and address them. Why pretend they don't exist!? It makes no sense!

Let's get this out in the open on a corporate level and START THE WORK OF REFORM AND HEALING ALREADY.

Time and again we are left to deal with the unyeilding, rigid, intolerant right-wing. It is impossible to reason with their mindset. Many SDA fundamentalists have strict TSDA tunnel-vision and nothing exists beyond that experience. It's all or nothing, agree 100% and grovel before the feet of EGW and pay allegiance to the 28 fundamentals written in tables of stone, or get lost. There is no middle ground for them. None. This is why they can make outrageous claims such as that we are 'prostituting the Adventist name' or that 'the denomination does not and never will recognize any different segment other than Traditional'.

Such reasoning belies the ignorance and intolerant narrow-mindedness as well as the ugly superiority-complex denominational elitist worldview many possess in the right-wing of the church. We'll have none of that pesky questioning and inquiring thank you very much, so shut up, sit down and love it or leave it. Traditionalism rules the day and no further thought is required.

If it were left up to people like this, the Reformation would have been a pipe-dream.

Did Judaism and Catholicism stubbornly cling to their tradition and persecute and kill those who dared to challenge and question? Of course they did. Is Adventism any less blind? Did they do any less with their very own champion of the Reformation gospel, Desmond Ford? However, both Paul and Luther instituted ideas of reform and change that resonate to this day, even in spite of the fact that both religions have ignored their respective rebels and plunged ahead with no desire for change, continuing to crush all those who dare to champion change within their ranks.

With regard to why we stay even when they may not agree 100% with everything the church teaches: From my personal experience, I have not found a better alternative. There is no church I agree with 100% on every doctrine. The closest match for me is Adventism. The fact that in the 1800s there were false doctrines in the church for me is irrelevant. When Jesus came to earth, Judiasm was full of false doctrines and abominations. Jesus came to reform. Jesus never came to the conclusion that Judiasm was a false religion, despite their multiple faults and corrupt leadership. Neither did Jesus advocate abolishing organized religion. Also, in reading the letters to the seven churches in Revelation, we discover that all seven churches are flawed. How does Jesus respond to their flaws? He responds the same way He did when ministering to the Jews in His earthly ministry. He explains their sin and asks them to abandon it. In essence, he's asking the churches to "go and sin no more".

We are in a sinful world and our churches are run by human beings. I do not believe there is any faultless church in existence. If we make it our standard that one must leave a church if one doesn't believe 100% of everything that is taught, we will soon become frustrated and worship alone, at home. Now, that is not to say that we should stay in a church that is teaching destructive or anti-Christian theology. But to nit-pick and demand perfection is not realistic. I believe that it is certainly not productive for most Adventists to rehash flaws in the early church history. The pioneers were all about the search for truth, tearing down that which was not truth, starting over, ever re-formulating, re-thinking, challenging traditional pradigms.

As a result of the stubborn, obstinate Tradional influence in the church today, we have lost that fire and are now stalled, stagnating in neutral.

Chris said:

"I have always appreciated the politeness and respect that you show me in these discussions."

Ditto. I've not only appreciated your style of communicating but also your intellectual contributions. Though we don't see eye to eye I often find myself reflecting on a question or point you have made during the day.

"So, I say that I think it is 'extraordinary' that we 'extraordinary' humans could have evolved from single celled soup. I also think it even more amazing about abiogenesis, but that is still off limits I am told. :) And, so I want to see 'extraordinary' scientific evidence for it coming from the scientists who make the claim."

Exactly. It is quite an extraordinary claim isn't it?

I'm the first to admit that overall I don't like evolution as a story. As a theist I think it is quite lacking in the warmth and care shown in the Genesis story and what one would expect from a Creator God. My beliefs would certainly be less complicated if the evidence for evolution wasn't so strong. I too needed strong convincing because I just didn't "get it" at first. But the evidence really is extraordinary.

"We only have conjecture and inference type of arguments to establish what happened in the past - because both you and I did not observe it!"

But we have left over evidence. Just like a crime scene, evidence that is left can point to certain ideas even if no one witnessed it. And, as much as Answers in Genesis likes to pretend otherwise, the fossil record really is configured in such as way as to either say common descent happened or a supernatural power specifically rearranged the record to make it look that way.

"This is how I interpret the main approach that has been put forward to this question (i.e. Where did us extraordinary humans come from?). Deny that it is extraordinary!
This denial seems to me to be what Darwinism is all about. Deconstruct life to the point where it no longer seems extraordinary any more."

Isn't that what science does though? All of science, not just TofE, tries to explain things without resorting to "Goddidit." Science isn't poetry. It may remove some of the mystery but the purpose is to understand.

And I guess I have a different reaction. If extraordinary has to mean clear evidence of the supernatural then it's true - evolution denies that as does all of science. But understanding parts and structures and mechanisms just increases my wonder personally. Looking at the fossil evidence for how the mammalian inner ear seems to have come about is beyond cool to me. "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin was so fascinating I couldn't put it down. My love and appreciation for my fellow creatures here on earth has only increased. Understanding more about how we are connected gives me goose bumps.

Understanding is what is extraordinary to me. And I think most scientists would share that and it is what Dawkins was getting at. Understanding and explaining doesn't decrease the wonder. I knew plenty about the components of childbirth before I gave birth to two children naturally and it didn't make it any less extraordinary.

Beth,

There are two points that I have been thinking about. One, is that I can't see how naturalistic science can possibly falsify supernatural creation - no matter how feasible evolution is! Two, is that evolution is not always so feasible to me - and I admit that this feasibility does drift backwards and forwards in my thoughts. It's feasibility to me is definitely a matter of confirmation bias for me - and this I think is true for everyone, even if they don't realise it.

I have even considered that evolution could be fully correct scientifically, and the important thing of that was it still couldn't falsify creation, theoretically, although it required a very strange way of looking at things! And was obviously an unacceptable paradigm.

I am not so fundamentalistic to say that either side is impossible outright - because I know enough to say that I don't know. There are some on both sides of the argument who say that the other MUST be impossible! This sort of fundamentalism is what is causing the friction - in my opinion. I admit that I choose a model based on faith.

You made a court case analogy, "But we have left over evidence." Yeah of course, I accept that, after all that is directly assumed from the original question, that this amazing humanity came from somewhere. So we have evidence - humanity, we assume it was left over from something - we don't like the 5 second ago theory! Then there are things like certain interpretations of the geological column that provide weight to the evolution model. But it's up to the jury to decide which model fits the evidence - it's still not hard mathematical logic proofs, its still about persuasion and influence of the jury. And, I think you actually really agreed with me, that extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence.

But the problem with the court case analogy is this. That evidence for both sides of a jury is based within the same constraints of the meaning of feasibility - the same domain if you will. The most feasible wins. And in this debate, that framework falls apart. Because evidence comes from different domains, and one claims supernatural intervention.

Creation starts off most definitely scientifically inexplicable! So does that mean the only other option is correct, feasible or not? In a court case, it would not be acceptable - unless supernatural is allowed to explain at least some of it. But as soon as supernatural is allowed, then how can we know where to draw any line anywhere on what is feasible or not feasible?

Even if the evolution option is more feasible to you, does that necessarily mean it is right beyond all question? Do you allow room for other people to believe in creation, knowing that there is a very small chance that they might be correct - because you can't completely falsify it. Alternatively, do you allow them to believe in it, because you don't want to hurt their feelings? Or do you go out and preach them the truth that you have come to, that you think creation impossible?

Let me give you an example. Dawkins says that he is at point 6/7 towards atheism. He is wise enough to know that he can not scientifically falsify God. If someone like him can leave a little room for the possibility of God, then how hard should it be for a Christian science lecturer to leave a little room for the possibility of creation?

I agree that Dawkins starts to reconstruct a little something, as compared with Friedrich Nietzsche who took it to some horrible conclusions. I just think he mixes up his philosophies, as all of us humans tend to do, to establish a view of reality that makes sense to us.

Science does not always deconstruct the meaning out of everything. I disagree with your assertion that it does have to. And meaning / extraordinarity does not necessarily equate with Goddidit for what I am saying. Science still has not defined an adequately consistent explanation of what means different species for example. What is the scientific point between one species and the next? Yet it is painfully obvious that there are different kinds of life, taxonomy depends on it.

Our philosophies use science for their own purposes. Some philosophies use science to take the meaning out of things - existential nihilism for example. I see that evolution is a type of nihilism in some sense.

Anyway, science can't prove Goddidntdoit.

Alright Jan..... But the title of this article is wrong. There is no middle ground. Just as there is no middle ground between good and evil..

Chris,
I understand the point you are trying to make about using evidence from different areas so to speak. And I agree. By definition, even being a theist already puts one outside of the scientific realm let alone creation. And so the two paradigms are drawing from different sorts of evidence.

However, the strict creation story makes claims that are quite testable. The claim about the supernatural isn't what evolution addresses, it's the claim that life, including human life, appeared suddenly, recently, close to its present form. Bringing in a supernatural explanation is fine - science can't say anything about that. But saying that the supernatural did a specific material act in our world that should have left evidence but instead left evidence to the contrary is the problem.

And here is where I really think the crux of our difference might be. You seem to think that the evidence is kind of wishy-washy and could go different ways depending maybe on how it is interpreted and such. I (along with the vast vast majority of the scientific world) don't, at least when it comes to strict creationism versus common ancestry.

Even if evolution ends up changing, the scientific world is not going to say that life appeared altogether recently, and there was a world-wide flood that formed our geology. And the most unlikely out of all those is the life appeared altogether. Even if time was sped up or whatever, the fossils are arranged in such a way as to completely discredit the idea that life appeared even somewhat altogether. The evidence is simply that strong against it. And the only way a supernatural explanation helps with that is by saying the supernatural rearranged things to look different which we have all agreed is a very distasteful alternative.

You asked some questions:
"Even if the evolution option is more feasible to you, does that necessarily mean it is right beyond all question?"

I think it is right beyond reasonable (not all) question that life, including us, evolved from a common ancestor. I think we know some mechanisms for how that happened including natural selection although we don't understand fully the role that these mechanisms have played. I also fully believe that there is still much to learn and there are valid questions about how these mechanisms work and if there are others. I don't think that the supernatural is necessary to explain the diversity of life. However, as a theist, I also think God might have played a part all along and I do think God created the universe from nothing to begin with.

When it comes to consciousness, I think evolution is on much shakier ground with its possible explanations, partly because there is no tangible evidence like a fossil record. However, I find the concept that we evolved up to a certain point and then all of a sudden God pops in and gives us consciousness kind of strange too. Especially since that consciousness is so flawed.

"Do you allow room for other people to believe in creation, knowing that there is a very small chance that they might be correct - because you can't completely falsify it."

Of course people can think whatever they want. All sorts of religions have all sorts of beliefs about creation. Have you read about Scientology's view? There is a small chance they are correct too.

But I think you're asking whether I think it is at least reasonable. Depends on what type of creation they are believing in. I believe that God created everything. However, in any possible reasonable way, I think that strict creationism has been scientifically falsified in as much as it has made claims on the natural world.

"Alternatively, do you allow them to believe in it, because you don't want to hurt their feelings? Or do you go out and preach them the truth that you have come to, that you think creation impossible?"

Hard to believe I know but in real life, mostly I keep my mouth shut, especially around certain types of creationists that are so sure that strict creationism is correct. Life is short, relationships are valuable and I really do understand the reasons for needing to still believe it.

Things are more complicated when it comes to policy. If it was my school district wanting to teach creationism as science, I'd be yelling long and hard even though I homeschool. When it comes to the SDA church, I am interested from a sociological standpoint but I really don't care much what the official policy is. I feel deeply for the professors who are trying very hard to walk an extremely small tightrope. I no longer feel an emotional investment though, in trying to change the church's view. I disagree with way more than evolution and no longer have a dog in that hunt. I think the church is a long way from changing its policy on strict creationism which is a shame - it's the wrong line to draw in the sand.

RT

Thank you for your thoughtful responses!

I'm not afraid of losing denominational employment for at least two reasons: (a) I don't think it will happen and (b) If it does, the world will keep on spinning and I'll be OK. It would be difficult, but I would survive and perhaps even thrive.

I had other things in mind when I wrote what I did; however, this conversation seems to be winding down, at least for now, and I do not want to wind it up again by saying more at this time.

No sense getting in the way when things are moving in what I take to be a helpful direction!

Thanks!

Dave

Beth,

You said:

"the strict creation story makes claims that are quite testable. The claim about the supernatural isn't what evolution addresses, it's the claim that life, including human life, appeared suddenly, recently, close to its present form. Bringing in a supernatural explanation is fine - science can't say anything about that."

Now, I see that you call creation a story, so I will call evolution a story. And then, later on, you said:

"if it was my school district wanting to teach creationism as science, I'd be yelling long and hard even though I homeschool"

The 5 second ago theory is a scientific hypothesis. But, it leaves us with no certainty about anything at all. So, it has no advocates, except when used as a tool for thinking about philosophical things really.

If creation does make testable claims, then it is a good scientific theory. Then, why would you be so adversarial to it being taught as a competing scientific theory? Note that the law of biogenesis is taught as science!

Now, creation has the following going for it, off the top of my head, I can think of:

- All observable natural selection is a testable prediction of the creation theory.

- Adaptablity is a testable prediction of the creation theory.

- Diversity is a testable prediction of the creation theory. Groupings in kinds is a testable prediction of the creation theory - which is still not very well explained by evolution.

- Similarity of design is a testable prediction of creation theory.

- Sun moon and stars are testable predictions of the creation theory.

- Water separating from land, light and darkness, i.e. the laws of physics are a testable prediction of the creation theory.

- A pretty consistent causality and framework of existence that meets our intellectual capacity is a testable prediction of the creation theory.

- The ability to love is a testable prediction of the creation theory.

- I think you see where I am going...

Now, you are comparing apples with oranges still.

The hypothesis of special creation should be competing with the hypothesis of abiogenesis. And Pasteur formed the law of biogenesis - which has yet to be falsified. So, based on competing hypotheses on the same level playing field, then creation wins hands down! As a theistic evolutionist, you may even accept this one already.

Then the hypothesis of long age, that needs to compete with the hypothesis of short age. This we can only test indirectly by inference. There is no causal mechanism going on here. And actually this hypothesis of long age was only originally advanced in order to fit the gradualism required by naturalistic explanations. So, I will examine what we have to compete with here.

Firstly, in your summary of my position, you did not properly account the fall of man, the introduction of sin. Your summary did not account for sin's effects in our world very much. Here is an important area where I say that we don't know how much things did change. Obviously, I am still maintaining most of the original predictions from creation, but I can make more predictions because of this as well. You say that the amount of change should be testable, well I ask how testable is it, where do we know to draw the line on this one?

- Sin makes the testable prediction of suffering in the world.

- Sin makes the testable prediction that nature is not in balance.

- Sin makes the testable prediction that death reigns!

- Sin makes the testable prediction that we can fool ourselves (even me :) at times)

- Sin makes the untestable prediction that creation was more amazing than now, and that nature was in harmony. This one is on faith :)

You postulate that the fossil record is arranged such a way. And you are right when you say that I don't know this for myself. But, I have no problem with it being arranged in any way, it being arranged doesn't falsify anything. It is a testable prediction of evolution, but is questionable that it always passes the test. There certainly is no clear arrangement from single celled soup to human life in the fossil record. It's not a slam dunk. My understanding is that it is mostly marine type of animals - and then I would suggest that marine animals are not usually buried by cataclysm - so I think it strange that there is a progression with that at all. So it fits the hypothesis of sin and nature not being in balance as well.

Then there is the dating techniques. Who knows what the starting positions were like, with any of them? Really! They ALL work backwards from now. This is crucial. If original creation was very different, and then sin entered, all of the dating techniques could be obscured by the same set of changes around the same time. There is no answer to this refutation. A lot of John Alfke's mesh webs is in the same boat. Dating requires uniformitarian assumptions of gradualism. Assumption of constant rates of change to reverse engineer time. I suggest it could ALL be explained by uniform step changes to the order of the physical world and the laws of physics as well - in a deep way that leaves us with no proper comparison to pass judgment on!

So, the long age hypothesis can possibly be an illusion, and also you may argue so the short age is as well. So, I think we have no winner in this area - this is fed only by constant repetitive confirmation bias. It is not scientifically validated, because it is not based on the scientific falsification of the competing hypothesis! How important is that? It does not falsify the effects of sin - the evidence is actually somewhat predicted by sin! Also, the devil can manipulate the physical, so how can you account for that, especially if it seems there is good reason that he wants people to believe in evolution? The long age hypothesis does not falsify the short age hypothesis, because it doesn't know how to account for sin. But a culture of confirmation bias exists around it, one that denies the possibility of the supernatural - which is no falsification - just a denial! This is my biased opinion - but I can't see it possible that science can falsify this, if all these effects, all the evidence can be accounted for by the predictions of the Bible.

The current ongoing loss of variety of viable species due to extinctions and the effects of sin indicate that evolution is not a sufficient explanation. Evolution kind of predicts that more species should adapt rather than go extinct! Do we really think that natural selection is more 'effective' now due to humans existence than it was for single celled creatures to evolve towards more complex species millions of years ago? Was the environment really any better back then? So, I question the very mechanisms of evolution being likely to cause the Image of God to evolve in the first place.

So, what have we left with? Of the competing hypothesis, i.e. the ones on the level playing fields, the testable results are all in favour of creation.

Chris said:
"If creation does make testable claims, then it is a good scientific theory. Then, why would you be so adversarial to it being taught as a competing scientific theory?"

Because the testable parts of it have been shown to be wrong and the untestable parts aren't science. Creationists really should be happy that the science part isn't discussed in the classroom by knowledgeable teachers because it would be torn apart. Much better to ignore it. Parts of it certainly could be part of a scientific theory if they had been supported by actual evidence. They aren't. It's not that certain aspects, like some you listed, aren't supported, it's that the main premises are wrong and so going on to argue the certain aspects doesn't make much sense.

Here is the bottom line and here is where the rest of your argument has trouble. We know that there was death, pain and suffering before humans appeared and we know this best from the fossil record (although there is other evidence as well). Human sin did not change the world from perfect to imperfect because humans weren't even around for most of its very imperfect history.

How the fossil record is arranged is quite important I think and it does falsify the scientific parts of the creation story. It shows most convincingly that life did not appear altogether. Not even close. And it also shows that humans were not around for most of the time life was present on earth. You don't need every piece of the puzzle from soup to human to see that the strict creationist story, literally interpreted is wrong.

Evolution does a great job explaining the evidence we see but even if it didn't, it is just not true that human sin brought on death and destruction. Humans may have fallen somehow but their fall did not cause the world to go from perfect to imperfect. And because this is really the incentive for the strict creationist argument, there isn't much need left to do the mental gymnastics necessary to justify the rest.

Beth,

I think we are getting to the crux of where we disagree.

I don't understand what you mean, when you say that the predictions of creation have been falsified - I don't think it is possible to falsify them scientifically.

You said, "We know that there was death, pain and suffering before humans appeared and we know this best from the fossil record (although there is other evidence as well). Human sin did not change the world from perfect to imperfect because humans weren't even around for most of its very imperfect history."

You are working backwards here from explaining to me how. You are giving me a statement of faith.

How do we know? How can you demonstrate that sin didn't do those things? You are just outright denying them - without explaining how it is impossible. Do you really think it is impossible for sin to explain them? Or do you just assume it?

On what basis can you reject that it is possible for the devil to have arranged some things with intention to deceive us? I'm not necessarily stating that I believe that, I am just pointing out that you can't deny the possibility, therefore you have not really falsified the belief. You can choose to deny the supernatural - that's freedom of choice, but you can't actually scientifically falsify it.

> Note that the law of biogenesis is taught as science!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omne_vivum_ex_ovo

Redi's and Pasteur's findings that life comes from life is referred to as the law of biogenesis, which asserts that NOTE THE FOLLOWING PHRASE modern organisms END OF BEVIN'S NOTE do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.

> I don't think it is possible to falsify them scientifically.

That's because your hypothesis is that sin completely changed natural laws in a way that makes the world look like it is old even when it is new

Your belief is indeed non-falsifiable. It is also completely useless as a scientific theory because it lacks the ability to predict anything. The ONLY basis for this hypothesis is that it allows a literal reading of Genesis to be compatible with measurements that show the world looks very old.

Lacking any predictive ability, and lacking the testability, it clearly can't be taught in a science class!

/Bevin

ps:

predicting something already observed is not a useful prediction. Good science involves predicting unexpected things that are not already observed.

predicting generalities is not a useful prediction. Good science involves making extremely accurate predictions.

For example:

Evolution predicted that, once we sequenced the DNA of chimps and humans, the DNA would be very similar. It is. A theory invented before we even knew what DNA was makes an accurate prediction about it! That's incredible.

Evolution predicted that the fossils in different rocks would match the continental drift and radiological dating of those rocks - before continental drift and radiological dating were known! That's incredible.

Name ONE SIMILARLY PRECISE UNEXPECTED RESULT predicted by short-age creation.

/Bevin

It never ceases to be amazing how many attributions can be given
to sin when we have not the slightest evidence of its effect on biological life. If so, please demonstrate that it can be absolutely verified. "Sin" is a theological term and is not a biological one.

"Evolution" .... don't you mean Creation ...
"predicted that, once we sequenced the DNA of chimps and humans, the DNA would be very similar. It is. A theory invented before we even knew what DNA was makes an accurate prediction about it! That's incredible."

I think evolution can not claim anything observable that creation can not not also claim. Creation predicts commonality as well, it was the same designer creating kinds to share an existence in the same biosphere. Same energy source, same metabolic functions, etc. It fits. That's incredible.

"It is also completely useless as a scientific theory because it lacks the ability to predict anything"

This is utterly incorrect. It does predict a lot of things. It predicts the Image of God - how does evolution account for that? It provides for a good theodicy. It predicts biogensis, rather than abiogenesis, Pasteur did tedious painstaking hard WORK to validate this - he was a creationist supporting the creationist philosophy. The creation philosophy explains some things better than evolution philosophy does - you can't deny that truth. You are able to disagree with me, if you are so convinced, but you have to show my how and why I am wrong, rather than simply telling me that I am wrong in such an emphatic manner.

I know that Daniel Dennet et al have some explanations to support evolution about those things as well. But, I think they push the boundaries of observable confirmation - and I still think creation explains some things a lot better.

Thank you for agreeing that creation is not scientifically falsifiable, that was the most important point I was trying to make.

"Sin" is a theological term and is not a biological one.

OK, where does theological come from? it comes from biological machines - brains. It is an abstraction observed by those machines. Unless you believe that theology has no basis at all with reality?

Bevin,

PS, Natural selection, the theory developed by a creationist, one that supports creation - and shows that we can change and adapt. Blyth published this stuff before Darwin used it. Used by Darwin and today claimed for the nihilist team. Darwin, a plagiariser, perhaps it was common in that century?

Although Darwin's book acknowledges Blyth, it does not say what for, and it was Blyth's ideas that formed natural selection - at least in all possible testable observable ways. The most significant and useful advance that evolution brings us was from Blyth's ideas, and still is. This is creationists evolution, not Darwinian evolution.

The difference being that Darwin postulated on the extent of that to common descent of all creatures of life. Actually he allowed room for perhaps a handful of original creatures, but on the other hand, he did not see that necessary either. It is not provable that all life came from one single initial instance of abiogenesis. This is an assumption.

Elaine,

I think we have different definitions of sin. So, I'm not sure if I answered your question. The definition I am going by here, is that the state of sin can be described by death and suffering, which are clearly real things in biology.

"The definition I am going by here, is that the state of sin is described by death and suffering, which are clearly real things in biology."

However, you are describing them from the perspective of one who has a ready-made definition of sin, have you not? In the study of biology, where do you find the term "sin"? It is only a perspective as seen through the eyes of someone who has already determined what sin is and how its results will be manifest. "Suffering" is only a feeling, so far as we know, of animal life, unless you believe that plants "feel."

What biology textbook uses the term "sin" to describe the death or decay in all life?

"However, you are describing them from the perspective of one who has a ready-made definition of sin, have you not?"

How can I otherwise? Really?

And you are using English to talk to me, full of ready-made definitions assuming that I will understand! I go futher, you expect me to understand not only the same ready-made definitions, but also a picture of what that conveys about what you are discussing with me. This essence is covered in information theory. You can't transfer information without a medium - it is impossible as far as we know. And the information is represented by something that has some sort of value.

Anyway, if you don't like the word 'sin', then please feel free to substitute it for any word that conveys the state of suffering and pain that I observe. Do you observe it too?

Yes, of course it is a value that us humans can observe, maybe some other mammals have a slight capacity for empathy etc as well. And plants can't observe it the same way - they do not have the capacity - so please don't pick on the plants. We can not hold them responsible for that!

Sin. It is a value statement to be sure. Science usually does not bother categorising this type of thing. The type of value being described is not relevant to most science. So of course it is not in many text book. But have a look at Daniel Dennets works, might describe it a bit. Although his purpose is more to deconstruct it so that evolution can explain it, and he ends up with a slightly different value to the meaning of things.

You are free to deny the existence of sin, it seems that God allows that. It's a useful word to me, it describes actual things that I really observe. But if you acknowlege the existence of pain and suffering, then I don't know what we are talking about.

Chris and Elaine

Is there a middle ground here? Death is a biological state.
Sin is the primordial causation. Biologically, death is the ceasing of certain defined vital functions. Theologically, death is consequential to the removal of the Vital Force divinely provided by the "Tree of Life." The proximal causation of death are many. None of which would exist in a sinless state. So the issue is neither biological or theological but semantic. Certainly one cannot deny the biological state or condition of either life or death. The pre-history primordial causation of death is open to dispute as is the pre-history primordial spark of life. There remain mysteries to finite man--biological and theological. That is why origins and causations remain issues of belief or "faith". We can prove life and we can prove death. We can prove neither the source of life nor the reason for death. We have in both cases reached the bounds of our understanding. Tom

Tom and Elaine,

Your wisdom and experience is always appreciated.

Tom had the phrase, "The proximal causation of death are many. None of which would exist in a sinless state."

Yes, that does align with my thoughts on the meaning of sin as well. "Proximal causation of death" are physical biological effects. The absence of these things would therefore also be a physical thing, which some of us would describe as sinless. Although I agree that sinlessness is only known to me from hope and faith.

Elaine, it makes sense to me and I think it is a useful word to a lot of people who see value in what it conveys. The existence of sinlessness is a source of hope and faith. Hope and faith are real things as well. These things can even be measured with brainwave gadgets - what are they called, fmri or something. The negatives, like fear and depression can also be measured with such devices. So results of things like sin and hope are measurable physically.

The source of sin, as a primal force is from that same beyond that Tom refers to, if I understand Tom properly. I know it is there, because I know I am finite, and I don't know where it comes from except for beyond my understanding. Where does imperfection come from?

But I also know that there are different definitions of sin floating around. One general definition is the state of imperfection that we see in our world. Another is the conscious thoughts that we might have a choice about - where we can attribute accountability for, these sins are a result of the state of imperfections that our brains are in - so ultimately is a subset of that state of imperfection of the physical that our brain is made of. Another definition covers the supernatural powers in a more directed format, the devil and demons, are more direct causes of intentional spreading more sin. I lump it all together usually in my thinking. I have no doubt on the reality of these things, just like I don't doubt that there is also a reality of a source of hope and love and good things. Because the end results are tangible.

Elaine, I'm trying to explore what I mean when I say 'sin', I hope it helps you understand my thoughts, and why the word sin makes sense to me - it's a value based categorisation of things that I observe as imperfect. It is in that category of things based on higher reasoning than the hard sciences, than the physical world, it is meta to the real world, geared or leveraged from it to explain parts of the real world to our better capacity. Just like any understanding really, is always an abstraction from the actual real world. This goes to how we value things, it provides an explanation or compass of how we derive value for things like morality.

I can't prove conclusively with scientific evidence the theory that we were once sinless, and now we are fallen. It does predict and explain a lot - but that is not 100% conclusive to anyone, but if it makes enough sense to us, and it explains enough for us to help make sense out of our world that we see, then I think it is rational and reasonable.

It is a theory, just like Aristotle's theory of something coming from nothing is an unprovable theory - although that seems even more absurd to me. Just like abiogenesis is a theory - it is unproven, and unprovable in that even if a pathway could be described, it wouldn't mean that is the only pathway, or that we necessarily evolved from soup with that pathway.

I don't want to resort to saying, "well you can't disprove it" again, I know you are wanting more than that from me, which I think is the essence of your original question. But as you can see it is not easy for me to put into simple words, it has a lot of types of values that I would have to bridge better with you to communicate about. Please let me know if you can see where I am heading with it?

Thanks.

Chris wrote "It is not provable that all life came from one single initial instance of abiogenesis. This is an assumption."

The TofE does not require that all life came from a single initial instance of abiogenesis. I don't know where you got this weird idea. As I have tried to point out to you on numerous occassions, the distinction between a living and a non-living assembly of molecules is not as clear as you want it to be.

Chris wrote "Creation predicts commonality as well, it was the same designer creating kinds to share an existence in the same biosphere. Same energy source, same metabolic functions, etc. It fits. That's incredible."

Creation predicts commonality, therefore it predicts that all swimming creatures using fins will have them either up/down or left/right. In reality fish have up/down and marine mammals have left/right. Creation does NOT predict this.

Chris wrote "It predicts biogensis", which explains why its adherents for 3000 years believed the opposite - in spontaneous generation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation.

Chris wrote "Darwin, a plagiariser, perhaps it was common in that century?".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blyth

In a 1959 paper, Loren Eiseley claimed that "the leading tenets of Darwin's work – the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection and sexual selection – are all fully expressed in Blyth's paper of 1835".[9][10] He also cited a number of rare words, similarities of phrasing, and the use of similar examples, which he regarded as evidence of Darwin's debt to Blyth. However, the subsequent discovery of Darwin's notebooks has "permitted the refutation of Eiseley's claims".[11]

Chris,
I think we see eye to eye on what we mean by sin. For a quick and dirty non-philosophical definition I mean what ever won't be around in heaven. Death and suffering are the first things that come to mind.

I'm a bit confused about what you mean by scientifically falsify. What I mean by scientifically falsify is taking out supernatural explanations and looking at the situation the way science does. Doing this shows that humans could not have brought the long history of death and suffering because they weren't around for most of it. We know this because of the fossil record (among other things). We can see that humans and all of their artifacts are only found in the very top layer, everywhere, all over the world, where ever they are found. The hypothesis that anything humans did could have caused death and destruction is falsified scientifically.

Now, of course we can go outside of science and bring in supernatural explanations. Then we can't falsify anything it's true. God or Satan are free to act in any way they want, following or not following scientific laws according to their whims. Yes, Satan could have rearranged the fossil record. But IMO that isn't any more helpful theologically then God doing it because God still is in charge and God needed to let him. To what purpose? Everything we think we know scientifically could be wrong because it could be God/Satan rearranging the world to deceive us. We have no way of knowing otherwise.

I also don't see how even bringing in a supernatural explanation is helpful because I don't see any other explanation besides a deceptive one given that the record is so clearly different from the Genesis narrative. Maybe you can be more imaginative there.

Personally I don't think that God acts in such a way as to purposefully, either directly or indirectly through Satan, deceive us. (I know you said you didn't think so either.) We, of course, are a long way from knowing everything about our material world and we will make plenty of mistakes in our quest for knowledge. But to proceed both scientifically and theologically, we need to be able to have a reasonable trust in what we are seeing.

Your original question was why I wouldn't want creationism taught as a scientific alternative in the public schools. This is why. Scientifically, its main tenants are wrong and public schools here aren't allowed to go into supernatural explanations, which again, is just as well given the theological mess one gets into trying to explain the evidence.

"One general definition is the state of imperfection that we see in our world."

This may capture the meaning of the use of the word for many. However, it is not a word that can, or should be used in the scientific field where it can be used, and has been, to explain anything that we find to be less than perfect in our estimation.

When one speaks of perfection, or a perfect world, it is an idea only, as has perfection yet been located in an individual or inanimate object?

Sin is a word so easily used, and less seldom defined as to become meaningless. If one is teaching a biology course to students, when is "sin" the appropriate word to be used to explain anything?

No one knows what a perfect person or world would be: how can he?
Would anyone claim that because he must work for a living that sin caused that? That is the story in Genesis. It is a figure of our imagination when we speak of "before sin" as if we had the slightest idea of how it might have appeared. Because the ancients describe the world they knew, with thorns and thistles, with pain in childbearing, in hard work to wrestle a living, they dreamed of a past utopia, as surely, they thought, life must have been better in the distant past. They dreamed of an idyllic state where they sat under a tree and food fell into their laps and no one had to lift a finger for anything. Of such are myths born.

If one wishes to define sin in religious terms as actions taken against a neighbor that you would not wish to be subject to, that is a much more approprate use of term, it seems.

Tom wrote;
--
Theologically, death is consequential to the removal of the Vital Force divinely provided by the "Tree of Life.
--

What strikes me continually is how people look at the symbolic nature of the story yet tell us the story is literal. Really did the animals and plants etc all eat from the "tree of life"

I am listening to some lectures on ancient Egypt and the lecturer makes the observation that myths are not meant to be looked at as literal but are giving some important principle. Religion tells stories and the stories are supposed to be literal. The question I would ask is when does a myth turn into a religion story moving from something not meant as literal to something meant as literal. I think the only answer is that when a religion forms it assumes the method of interpretation of the information it wants to incorporate. Which is why like Tom a symbolic tree is transformed into a literal tree with specific life giving properties.

Ron

rc,

The important principals from creation are what? Darwinian evolution seems to remove some of those important principals. Principals which are used throughout the Bible.

Beth,

"Yes, Satan could have rearranged the fossil record. But IMO that isn't any more helpful theologically then God doing it because God still is in charge and God needed to let him. To what purpose? Everything we think we know scientifically could be wrong because it could be God/Satan rearranging the world to deceive us. We have no way of knowing otherwise."

I'll tell you why I think its more important theologically, that it is because of sin. Because I will never accept that God's will is to deceive us. That is contrary to the nature of God. He does allow sin to some extent, this is the paradox of love and free will existing at the same time an omnipotent omniscient benevolent God. But we accept that paradox already. And so, after accepting that paradox, then it is more useful to say that we are deceived by mechanisms of evil other than God. For us who have chosen the Bible as our creed, I don't really know another way to look at that.

Elaine,

I agree it is most often used in a moral context.

And I agree that it is part of the religious paradigm. My point is that the religious paradigm is part of a whole system that goes towards a world-view for a lot of people. I think I see how you understood me now. I wasn't really advocating that it be taught in science classrooms. I was just drawing out the point that it is a theory. Being a religious theory, in general, science has tried to stay out of value statements wherever possible. Although when looking at the philosophy of science, value statements are required at some point that define the axioms that we go by - a lot of Christians choose a model of truth with axioms based on the Bible.

Now, in context of this thread, my opinion is that a science teacher who knows that this is most likely part of a person's world-view, in fact they should know this already as it is written out in black and white in the fundamental beliefs, that they could respect their students values by establishing that their religious views are not falsifiable scientifically. I think that is all that needs to be said. That creation and the fall are not scientifically falsifiable. I am happy for them to learn about creation by religion and I understand that there is a need for evolution to be taught as the prevailing philosophy in science as well.

Bevin,

"The TofE does not require that all life came from a single initial instance of abiogenesis. I don't know where you got this weird idea. As I have tried to point out to you on numerous occassions, the distinction between a living and a non-living assembly of molecules is not as clear as you want it to be."

If you read more of the context of what you quoted of me, then you will see that I am not insisting that the theory does say that. You have misunderstood my intention. And I said that Darwin does not say that either, although this was discussed in his book a little - so it is not my weird idea, I got the weird idea from Darwin.

Also, there certainly are some evolutionists, I have spoken to them myself, who do believe that abiogenesis was most likely one instance. They do make that assumption on faith - I never said that they assume it is a requirement for them either - just that they assume it seems most reasonable and likely to fit what they see.

In broader context, I was exploring different theories that can not be falsified, but are assumed to fit what we see. I never said that you assumed it, and I never said Darwin assumed it. I was not arguing with your particular model, because I don't know your particular model in detail enough. I was discussing in general about assumptions vs positive proof.

As to Blyth. I suspect that you misunderstood my point because again, you did not acknowledge what I was saying. Blyth deserves credit where credit is due. Selection can not be claimed as a win for Darwinian evolutionists.

"There can be no doubt of Darwin's regard for Edward Blyth: in the first chapter of On the Origin of Species he wrote "Mr. Blyth, whose opinion, from his large and varied stores of knowledge, I should value more than that of almost any one," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blyth

Darwin was apparently in correspondence with Blyth a bit as well.

Also, Blyth published the concept of natural selection in 1835-1837 in The British Magazine of Natural History. (See www.thedarwinpapers.com, chapter 2. We are also pretty certain that Darwin received copies of this magazine while in Peru in 1835 during his voyage on the Beagle.)

Anyway, my point still stands, that Darwin receives all the fame, and although Darwin does acknowledge Blyth in his book, he does not say what for! At the time, he might not have seen the need to explain what for, for example if he thought that was assumed what Blyth was popular for. Selection is and was a creationist idea.

Yes I acknowledge what you say, that a lot of creationists apparently did not understand this, and had an oversimplified view.

As to your definition of life - I know that you and I take different meanings. Life is definitely a value statement - just like the word 'sin' is a value statement. Value statement are not 'wrong' as long as we understand each-other, we can communicate an idea.

Bevin

PS Another thought I wanted to respond to.

You said: "Creation predicts commonality, therefore it predicts that all swimming creatures using fins will have them either up/down or left/right. In reality fish have up/down and marine mammals have left/right. Creation does NOT predict this"

Don't you mean, 'evolution' does not predict this! Evolution does never explain why! So how can it predict anything? What specific mechanism predicts that some will go up/down, and some will go left/right. Which one of the tenets of evolution explains this? You would do the same that you accuse me of. You find something in nature, and then reverse engineer a prediction.

But that IS what science often does. And when talking about origins, that is all that science can ultimately do!

Creation does predict differences. It says that there are different kinds. Where does creation predict that all swimming creatures would have the same mode of tail action? You set up yet another straw man for you to demolish.

This argument is futile. But I will keep responding if you insist.

My point being, that it is a logical fallacy to say that one has more predictive power than the other. Because that all depends on who you talk to.

If the theory is that sin brought death, why are there evidences of death (fossils) millions of years before evidence of humans, from who sin was supposed to originate?

Elaine,

The evidence you suggest is refutable as I have already demonstrated. And I admit that the refutation is unfalsifiable and unverifiable in a scientific sense as well. It comes from deeper axioms of which science is but a small part.

PS. Having said that, I acknowledge that there are a lot of people who are into creation science who have stronger refutations than I know of. But for me I think it boils down to acknowledging that I accept a different axiom.

While for the ancients there was no separation between religion and nature, today we should not confuse the two, remembering that science expects evidence while religion should not if it is based on faith.

Elaine,
In some domains I agree to some extent. But also to some extent religion has to make sense of the world around us. We don't hold in our head two completely separate realities. One is an explanation of the other. Hence the idea of a meta explanation. Not completely devoid from reality.

Chris said:

"Don't you mean, 'evolution' does not predict this! Evolution does never explain why! So how can it predict anything? What specific mechanism predicts that some will go up/down, and some will go left/right."

Actually it does explain why. Pretty cool too. Watch the video on this page and it specifically talks about why marine mammals move the way they do in the last minute. In short, because that's the way land mammals move, undulating their spines in running and marine mammals are descended from land mammals. Watch the whole thing though - it's only about 5 minutes and pretty fascinating.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html

Beth,

Point is that both theories can claim that they predict certain things until the cows come home.

"Evolution does never explain why!" OK, this was a bit tongue in cheek. Some scientists get to the point where they say, well science doesn't seek to explain why!

I don't disagree that the model seems to fit - when reverse engineering, there is always more than one possibility. Of course I could pick on it, and ask for each significant step to be explained and demonstrated along the way from walkers to swimmers. There seems some infeasible steps to me. So it is not necessarily a compelling or convincing argument.

But that is besides the point. The point is that both models predict this. And, I need to add, creation model does predict some evolution as well, so I'm not sure where the models are necessarily in conflict with this example of swimmers.

Here is another strange thought. As I do from time to time.

The mammalian swimmers were supernaturally evolved quickly in order to survive the flood. :)

PS. Interesting that you like the mammalian swimmers, I think that you gave me a similar model before represented in the geological column. Do mammalian swimmers represent a large proportion of the geological column? Or is that a mistaken impression I got from you before.

So God had a soft spot for whales and dolphins and gave them some help during the flood. I don't blame Him, I do too.

Wish I could evolve that quickly. When my kids were toddlers a couple of extra hands would have been nice :)

No marine mammals aren't a big part of the column. They just have a nice record of transitions that's all, so they are a good example to point to of evolution at work.

Visiting the dolphins up near where my parents lived for a few years, half way up North West of Western Australia, a place called Monkey Mia, one of my favourite memories.

I guess you are learning a lot from this interaction, Chris.

Have you begun to wonder why you don't know such stuff - eg: the evolution of marine mammals - before I throw it into the conversation?

/Bevin

Bevin said:

"I guess you are learning a lot from this interaction, Chris."

Chris is hardly the only one learning from our exchanges I would hope. We all are. Personally I've been challenged theologically and it's been really good for me to have to pinpoint and distill information into a reasonable post length (still working on that.)

Bevin,

Very funny. Since when did I claim to be an expert on the geological column? Very early on, months ago, I conceded that Beth knows more about it than I do. I have no problem asking for her assistance on that. I know that she won't ridicule me!

And, you have agreed with my most important points already, so you need not set yourself up as some arbiter of truth!

I think I know how you perceive me Bevin. But I also know that is your choice on how you represent that.

Bevin,

Here are the most important things that I think I will remember from this conversation.

You and I like chess.

Beth and I like dolphins.

Elaine's questions are two steps ahead of what I am thinking about. She is polite about it.

Tom has a beautiful caring heart.

Nightdweller is upset, he is articulate.

rc has a lot of thought about this as well, he is intelligent.

Gerhard I think is a gem of knowledge.

These are just some of the things that will stick with me from this conversation. There was a lot of other trivia as well, stuff that I will forget who quoted what. I'm not an encyclopedia, these are the sorts of things I remember.

One of the strongest things that I will remember, is that you were polite to me sometimes, I make a conscious decision to value those moments more than the others with you.

I forgot to mention Don. I enjoyed your thoughts as well. The mathematical one had me going for a minute.

I'm sorry - I did not intend that to be offensive.

What I was trying to get at is that your extremely limited consumption of the pro-evolution literature is crippling you in this conversation. You are the one who mentioned how few books you read. That huge gap in your knowledge is leading you to make remarks like "What specific mechanism predicts that some will go up/down, and some will go left/right. Which one of the tenets of evolution explains this? You would do the same that you accuse me of. You find something in nature, and then reverse engineer a prediction."

The knowledge of sea mammal evolution is not obscure knowledge. It is main stream, covered in the intro books. You are not being handicapped because you lack expert knowledge. You are being handicapped because you don't know the fundamentals. It is like watching a person play chess who has never read a book on end-games. They can enjoy the game, but they clearly aren't serious about it.

You have postulated that sin somehow modified natural law in a way that makes it look like this world has had life on it for millions of years. You don't seem to understand just how deeply into the geological and biological fabric of this world the 'millions' are written. This is why Beth and I can't believe it is merely a side-effect of some change - which is why we believe you are postulating a universe with a dishonest God. We all agree that we don't like the idea of such a God, so Beth and I conclude your postulate is wrong.

Beth is right - we are all learning from this conversation.
For me, it is interesting to see the extra pro-evolution information that John Alfke and others throw into the pot, and also tightening up the formulation of my analysis.

/Bevin

Bevin,

What the? Seriously! I'm not sure if you are being funny or serious!!!? I think you have taken me completely the wrong way.

You are imagining a gap in my knowledge, based on your (very big) misunderstanding of what I wrote. Perhaps I wrote it poorly - sometimes I condense too much into a few lines.

The premise of my remarks revolved around the fact that explaining a theoretical line of descent does not show predictive ability! So, it does not explain 'why' sufficiently. But I think you misunderstood me when I was asking for the 'why'.

Let me quote for you something a biologist recently wrote to me. "The entire point of science is that there doesn’t need to be a why; things just happen, and science figures out how they happened."

So, I think you and I were on different wavelengths regards what I wrote. If there is no 'why', then there needs not be any causal mechanism to explain progression. Beth brought up the point about progression, and this is what I was meaning, that there is no explanation of what drove the direction of that pathway. Rather, it just happened is the answer! No adequate 'why' is given yet - not in the sense that I was asking why.

It had nothing to do with me knowing what the proposed line of descent was! That sort of thing is taught in middle school.

You really need to stop jumping to the wrong conclusions about what I meant. You put up so many straw men it is not funny any more.

If you think I don't understand something, try asking me a question, before you jump off the deep end like that.

Chris,

are you claiming that you knew the evolutionary explanation for mammals having horizontal tails before Beth pointed you at the video?

/Bevin

Bevin,

Yes my friend. I did know that.

I should take some responsibility and give you some background here. I tried the same question once before with Beth. I had previously said something like evolution does not explain 'why' humans are the most dominant species. Her answer at that time, was because their brains evolved to be bigger. I thought that was a completely tautological answer. And so, I should have known better that she would say the same about mammals, but I forgot the mindset she was in. And to be honest, I couldn't be bothered at the time explaining the question, because it was rather philosophical rather than practical. I acknowledge that Beth may or may not have known what I really meant, either way, her answer showed me that the question doesn't matter to her way of looking at it - and that was sufficient for me to understand her point of view.

I felt no need for me to push that with her. I did explain that I thought it was not a sufficient answer - if you go back and read my response to her, maybe you didn't understand my response how I meant it. But honestly, I was happy to understand that we see things differently. I was really a lot more interested in our shared interest in mammals that can swim. Whales, dolphins etc have an awe inspiring effect on me. It was worthwhile pausing from my main line of thinking to something else that is important to me. Part of that is my desire to connect with people, building bridges rather than always looking for the differences!

Now I feel like I should flesh out my original thought for you, becaue I hope that you do actually want to understand me - rather than look for holes that aren't there. My intended point goes something like this. Evolution does not predict that humans have to be the dominant species, because it could EQUALLY predict that any other line was dominant as well, even more dominant species could exist according the the predictive ability of evolution! So, it is just matter of chance! To me, that is not a sufficient answer to the question 'why'. It is just one of many 'possible' hows. I look at the mammal swimming thing the same way - that evolution does not predict that mammals HAD to go back into the water - they could have EQUALLY become extinct or any other number of things. So what does evolution really predict?

You also pointed out that reverse engineering is not prediction. This is an extension of the same argument, but pointed towards evolution.

The 5 main hypotheses of evolution do not specifically predict that there will be mammals necessarily evolve down that pathway. Evolution does not make NECESSARY or strong predictions. These examples are weak predictions - like finding intermediate species - is a weak prediction - it adds more weight to the 'how' as more confirmation bias, but nothing more to the 'why'. It is a matter of the philosophy of evolution if that 'why' is sufficiently answered.

Now, I want to address another point again - because you have not acknowledge my understanding of it. You said: "You don't seem to understand just how deeply into the geological and biological fabric of this world the 'millions' are written. This is why Beth and I can't believe it is merely a side-effect of some change - which is why we believe you are postulating a universe with a dishonest God"

I do understand that! I have acknowledged your point of view multiple times. But I have been trying to explain a different point of view. The main crux of the difference is where you say "merely a side-effect of some change".

If it was a supernatural change, you can not really say how much of a change that was! You have nothing to go by. No standard of knowing. No deduction at all! Only induction. You can choose to deny the possibility based on your confirmation bias. But that is not a necessary denial for me - it is based on your choice that you think the side effect could not have caused that change. You can't prove that. You can't establish what is or isn't possible regards to the supernatural. You don't really know how much change there might have been. I choose to remain open minded about that - because I know that there is NOTHING to go by with regards to those claims, except for what makes most sense to the bigger picture in my understanding.

So, you can not establish that the change could not have done it except your personal choice to deny the possibility. So then you build on that shaky foundation to reach the conclusion that God was necessarily lying if that were true. To me, that is a severe logical fallacy. You don't realise that your certainty is based on confirmation bias without any deductive reasoning at all!

Ok, lets back up. We were discussing predicting specifics v. predicting generalities.

I wrote "predicting generalities is not a useful prediction. Good science involves making extremely accurate predictions"
and followed up with some specific examples - the commonality of DNA between humans and chimps.

You provided two Creation "predictions".

PREDICTION ONE

You wrote "Creation predicts commonality as well, it was the same designer creating kinds to share an existence in the same biosphere."

I replied "Creation predicts commonality, therefore it predicts that all swimming creatures using fins will have them either up/down or left/right. In reality fish have up/down and marine mammals have left/right. Creation does NOT predict this."

To which you replied "Don't you mean, 'evolution' does not predict this! Evolution does never explain why! So how can it predict anything? What specific mechanism predicts that some will go up/down, and some will go left/right."

You are now saying that you knew that the muscular-skeletal structure of mammals is immediately usable for horizontal flukes, and that normal minor mutations in the genes will get from there to what whales have today.

If you knew the answer, why did you ask me the question?

PREDICTION TWO

Chris wrote "It predicts biogensis"

To which I replied "which explains why its adherents for 3000 years believed the opposite - in spontaneous generation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation."

I did not notice any response to this complete demolition of the second prediction.

Then you asked

So what does evolution really predict?

You also pointed out that reverse engineering is not prediction. This is an extension of the same argument, but pointed towards evolution."

You are right - reverse engineering is not a prediction.

We know that the gene pool mutates almost randomly. We have a much better understanding today than Darwin did of how sexual and asexual reproduction works. We have seen many different ways that the offspring is not a perfect copy of the parent contributions - and they all appear to be randomly occuring errors in a process that usually works very reliably.

Because of this, and because of the complexity of the Earth's ecosystem, it is not possible to predict the future.

Instead, we have to wait and see what happens.

In the case of living animals and fossils, we don't have to wait. We can use geology to place the fossils in approximate chronological order. We can use a variety of methods - original just appearance, more recently cladistics - to arrange those fossils into approximate descent trees.

We can then use those descent trees to predict other parts of the genome.

And those predictions (a) are usually correct, and (b) match reality

This is why I choose the example of mammals. Once you know that whales are mammals, and once you understand that mammal musculo-skeletal structure leads to flukes - you have the surprising result that separates fishes and mammals.

It is not that they are both designed for swimming in the ocean. It is that they have made use of their underlying genetics to provide a mechanism for swimming.

/Bevin

Lastly you wrote "So, you can not establish that the change could not have done it except your personal choice to deny the possibility."

The possibility is real. The direct consequence, although you don't see it, is that God has created a huge lie. You and I and every other Christian I know use personal choice to reject this possibility.

/Bevin

Bevin,

Yes, OK, backing up. Agreed that one of the things we are talking about is predictive power, and how that could relate to the potential to explain 'why' things are the way they are. Actually, there has also been an interleaving of the conversations between Beth and myself and the ones between you and me.

You'll have to forgive me, as quite a few of my thoughts are also coming from discussions that I have had on this topic over the past year or so have been with atheist biologists. The context of my thoughts is very broad - I am not always consistently trying to prove the one same theorem each time I make a comment! Some of my arguments are for a general creation, that would also fit a theistic evolution vs atheistic evolution, and some are more for recent creation. Whereas I suspect you took me to be arguing for the same point each comment I made? In the context of the discussion with you, these might not be the right question of me to be asking people on this forum. I should take some responsibility for that as well.

Maybe you actually agree with what I am getting at, if you are a theist already, just hear me out and I will do my best to clear up the confusion about this particular question at hand - about the question 'why'.

I did provide quite a few more "predictions" than those two. In reverse, these are better called theorems, I think we agree with that terminology. My reason for erroneously using the word "predictions" is that there is a LOT of what evolutionists claim are predictions are really just theorems - explanations of what already 'is' and postulations of what 'has been'. It is not so strong with predictions about what 'will be' - because these actual "predictions" pale to insignificance compared to its sweeping claims overall. Hence I said not very strong predictions.

Especially, interesting in context when the challenge is made that evolution does not make testable predictions! i.e. if evolution does not make any testable predictions in the places that it disagrees with creation, then it can not claim any scientific advantage over creation! And it can not use theorems as predictions won!

I suggested that creation predicts all things - meaning that all things can be explained by the theorem of creation - better so than for naturalistic Darwinian Godless evolution. I was getting at the philosophy behind it. The 'why'.

The two you quoted from me were reflections of the predictions that you gave me of evolution - my intention was to show that creation predicts those things as well. If you consider theistic evolution as a type of creation, then I think you might see where I am coming from. When I use the word evolution, I sometimes use it in the context of Darwinian evolution which is aimed theologically at proving that there is no teleology - that there is no creation at all. A lot of Darwin's book is theological.

PREDICTION ONE

I said... Evolution does never explain why! So how can it predict anything? What specific mechanism predicts that some will go up/down, and some will go left/right

... mammals evolving back to the water ... I knew that hypothesis already ... you thought I didn't ... I felt insulted by your triumphal conclusion ... sorry, I am sensitive sometimes ...

Now you are asking. If you knew the answer, why did you ask me the question?

BUT, my question has still not been answered! I said before, that the answer was not sufficient. If you understood the question as I meant it, then you would give me a different answer. I provided more detail, further examples and background of what I meant.

I will try again. There was another way that I asked the same question. It went like this. Evolution does not explain 'why' humans are the dominant species. The answer that I got was something like humans did evolve bigger brains which made them dominant. So, I will try and give it to you in a way that might reveal how I think it did not explain 'why':

My Challenge: Evolution does not explain 'why' humans are dominant.
The Answer: Humans are dominant because they evolved that way!

Tautological answer to 'why', no? Can you see why I think this is tautological? Do you see what it does not answer 'why'?

Second attempt at the question, this time in reference to tail action:

My Challenge: Evolution does not explain why sea mammals tails move up and down.
The Answer: Sea mammals tails move up and down because they evolved that way!

As I said before, the 'why' was meant more philosophically than I think you took it. Your challenge was that creation could not predict this. But it predicts it as strongly as evolution does - if we are really talking about theorems - then neither is stronger than the other, we are both wrong really to call them predictions - I mean they both end up being correct - how strong a prediction is that?

You were mistaken to say that creation predicts that all swimmers had to swim with the same tail action. Where does creation predict that? That is the type of straw man that you present sometimes. Perhaps I do it to - and will appreciate you to point that out to me as well. Anyway, creation predicts that there will be variation equally as evolution!

So, as far as predictions go, in those examples, they are both equally as strong - they are both consequently correct as predictions! As far as theorems go, then we can't compare them from a scientific point of view, because we don't have any ability to compare supernatural with naturalistic explanations in our current science.

General Pattern of what is going on:
My Challenge: Evolution does not explain why we see X.
The Answer: We see X because X evolved that way!

My response. Evolution is not a sufficient answer to the question of 'why'.

Now, point 2 from prediction 1:
You claimed: "You are now saying that you knew that the muscular-skeletal structure of mammals is immediately usable for horizontal flukes, and that normal minor mutations in the genes will get from there to what whales have today."

NO - this is still not correctly characterizing my position, it is partly true and partly false. The false bit that I want to point out is that I don't not say the following: "that normal minor mutations in the genes will get from there to what whales have today."

I did know that is the hypothesis, but I do not believe that the minor mutations sufficiently account for that posed progression. I do not claim that it is absolutely impossible, but I think it is extremely unlikely - because the amount of gradualism required for speciation contradicts the statistical clumping of species. Such gradualism I think should have produced more gradual varieties of species than we see today. Anyway, it has not testable, and you agree, can not be demonstrated. I do not have any personal stake in that statement of faith.

Showing intermediate structural forms does not necessarily prove that those forms were indeed intermediate in the evolutionary progression. You could line up all the fossilized dog skulls from smallest to biggest - and you could say that there is a progression of evolution from small dogs to big dogs. It seems logical - the evidence fits. But we know that it is wrong, because we know that all dogs descended from something like the wolf. And so, I did concede that it does fit the model, and evolution has not been scientifically falsified by that problem. But, it is still a problem from my perspective.

Further, I mentioned that even if it was possible that natural selection may indeed explain that, which although seems unlikely to me, I am open minded to the possibility, so even if natural selection does explain it, it still does not give any extra strength to evolution in this debate. Because creation claims a lot of natural selection as well! So, it was a completely useless argument, and has not progressed either of the competing hypotheses at all! And so I didn't care to chase it up any more at that time.

PREDICTION TWO

I wrote of creation "It predicts biogensis"

You replied "which explains why its adherents for 3000 years believed the opposite - in spontaneous generation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation."

... and now you add ...

"I did not notice any response to this complete demolition of the second prediction."

I had pointed out previously that Pasteur was a creationist, and he is the one credited for strengthening this theorem - to the point we call it a law!

But I have chosen not to acknowledge many of the minor points that you have made. Sometimes, I think they are wrong, but I am not interested in arguing every single minor point with you. I think I understand the thrust of your argument anyway, so wasn't too interested in these side tracks, I try my best to stay focused on what you mean. I think I understand your point of view - and that is usually sufficient for me.

Occasionally, I wish you to acknowledge my points more often as well. This is why I have said previously, I think that you and I have misunderstood each other quite a bit.

And, I didn't realize that this particular issue of biogenesis was so important to you. I thought that I understood your perspective on it. And you did not ask any more specific questions on it until just now.

You have asked me for a response, so I will give you my response on it. Firstly, your sarcasm was counter productive! You said "...which explains why its adherents..." and you actually meant that sarcastically, because I think that you are telling me that the fact "3000 years believed the opposite" you really mean to use as a refutation of my point, in juxtaposition to the word explanation. Your sarcasm gives me the impression that you are annoyed. And, I made a declaration saying that I did not want to disturb your sanctuary any more. I was worried about engaging in a stupid cat fight with you. Still am a bit wary about that!

And, further, I feel that your logic is flawed. The ONLY logical way to disprove this theorem, is to disprove biogenesis. Period. Theorem still stands, as far as I know.

People can believe whatever people believe, it has nothing to do with weather or not a theorem is correct - unless the theorem is about that particular belief - which this theorem obviously isn't. Another straw man demolished.

Plato did not accept something can come from nothing. Aristotle may have. Perhaps you like Aristotle's view? Perhaps you have proven Pasteur wrong? The theorem of biogenesis still stands. Even if humans can artificially induce biogenesis, it still isn't truly abiogenesis, because you still got the humans doing it! I don't think it possible for humans to even prove abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis reminds me of uncertainty principal I heard from quantum physics, at a certain level - as soon as you observe something, you have altered it by observing it, so you are not able to observe what it really was. The same principal applies to abiogenesis.

...

"It is not that they are both designed for swimming in the ocean. It is that they have made use of their underlying genetics to provide a mechanism for swimming."

You understand that the logic of what you just said does not track with me as evidence for evolution. These two things are not mutually exclusive! I could say it this way: They ARE designed for swimming in the ocean, their genetic structure is designed in such an amazing way that enables them to swim.

Bevin,

One more bit you said: "The direct consequence, although you don't see it, is that God has created a huge lie. You and I and every other Christian I know use personal choice to reject this possibility."

Here is where you and I disagree the strongest. I am asking you to acknowledge something for me. This continues to be the most significant ongoing point I want to share with you.

Yes, OK, I understand that it seems SO very true to you, that you would actually blame God if it wasn't really true. You know what, I honestly think that is arrogant pride. I am being honest as I can here, and telling you how it sounds to me.

Here is how I believe about that, this is personal now. If everything I thought about the universe and the world, and nature turned out to be completely wrong, then I still would not be able to blame God for any of that, I would admit that I was in error, or that the devil deceived me - I would be the fallible one in that scenario. I could never blame God for that. You should not either!

The idea of God deceiving us is blasphemous. You are right, Christians should completely reject that possibility! But, you do not completely reject that possibility. You accept the remote small possibility that you are wrong, so, if it turned out that you were indeed in error about reality, then what? You have decided that if you are wrong, then God lied to you! That is blasphemy Bevin.

Chris,

Your arguments are sometimes expressed in words that are so poorly defined, and (when you enlarge upon them) often very different to the usual meaning.

You keep wanting me to acknowlege your point. If you want points acknowleged, make them them well defined and non-controversial!

Your predictions/theorems/postulates stuff above is an example of this. Science doesn't have theorems and doesn't have postulates. Confusing math and science does not make your point easier to understand.

Claiming creation predicts some "law" that creationists did not believe in for 3000 years, and which is ill-defined today, is ridiculous. That is simply not a valid meaning of "predicts".

You wrote
> My Challenge: Evolution does not explain 'why' humans are dominant.

Again, you are using poorly defined terms.

(1) Please provide a precise definition that will let me determine whether a species is "dominant".

(2) Please provide a precise test that will let me determine whether an answer of the form "The reason why humans are dominant is ..." will satisfy you.

(3) Please provide a precise test that will determine whether an assembly of molecules is alive.

/Bevin

> I am asking you to acknowledge something for me.

Having read this reply several times, I am unable to determine what it is that you want me to acknowledge.

Any God worth worshipping will understand that it is reasonable to consider and reject the possibility that said God is a liar.

Blasphemy is a charge brought against other Christian's to justify killing or otherwise punishing them for disagreeing with oneself.

/Bevin

Here's a thoughtful commmentary/website about theistic evolution.

Here's a thoughtful commentary/website about theistic evolution, whether you agree with it or not.

Loren/carmen

Since evolution userpts adaptation and diversity--a given at creation: (After his kind) ie (within his kind) why should one concede theistic evolution? Moreover, does not the fall of man suggest a degenerative process physically as well as morally in mankind? "Early man" may just as well be exhibit one of degeneration as much as modern man being an exhibit of
progression.

The issue at stake is not merely beginnings but the end of man. Christianity is based upon a Creator God who so loved His rational creation to die for it. Theistic evolution is a coward's retreat in that face of empty evidentiary data.

Both creationism and evolution belong in the humanities--neither have a basis in science. Tom

Bevin,

"Science doesn't have theorems and doesn't have postulates"

Thank for the correction on the word 'theorem'. Please substitute my word 'theorem' for the word 'theory', or even 'hypothesis' - you should be able to work it out from the context. I apologise if that was distracting for you.

But, I still think the word postulation is correct. The theory of evolution does indeed have 'postulates' (noun pl.). i.e. it makes claims.

Although I don't actually recall using the word 'postulates' in the noun plural form the way you have challenged me. I did talk about the act of 'postulation', and to 'postulate' (verb) and I think they are also correct usages of the word.

Doing a quick text search in this thread Don, Hansen, Tom and Gerard have used the word in various forms. They are all very clever cookies.

It may have different connotations in the maths context, which I guess you are coming from. In maths it may refer to axioms - a proposition that requires no proof. Rather than the general meaning of claims in the scientific world. But you have also used the word in the same context I did, in reference to things that I proposed.

Whatever...

Then you asked me:

(1) Please provide a precise definition that will let me determine whether a species is "dominant".

(3) Please provide a precise test that will determine whether an assembly of molecules is alive.

Woah! Well, either these things are self evident, or else we are going to go on forever without being able to discuss the meaning of them. Do you know that a precise definition of causality - cause and effect - is not even possible to establish as true! It is just an assumed axiom.

Like I already said before, these are philosophical questions, rather than practical, some people understand them, but I apologise that you don't understand what I was getting at. I don't think I can help you at this time - so I do not expect an answer from you. What I think you missed, is that they were rhetorical, meant to make a point about the philosophy of evolution. If you understood the question, you would respond about the philosophy. But instead, you deconstruct the meaning out of the axioms in the question, and then the point does not make sense. So, essentially avoiding the question.

Let me ask you, how do you define the Image of God? Perhaps that will provide us a starting point about what means dominant species.

With regards to what upsets me about you suggesting God being a liar. Your logic went like this.

A) You defined a scenario (that evolution is wrong).

B) Then, you said if the scenario is true then God is a liar.

C) Then you said that as a Christian we should not accept the possibility of God being a liar.

D) Then, you went on to admit that there is a small possibility that the scenario is true!

I suggest the problem is your point B). I suggest that there is NO possible scenario that God is a liar. The difference is that I do not presume that there is any possible scenario that God is a liar. You presume that there is.

You have established a possible scenario where God is a liar. You accept it is possible, and you further you use it to strengthen your own theory over a fellow Christian.

So, because of your presumption, you are using that as weight towards your theory that evolution is correct. This presumption is arrogant. And bad use of logic. You are working backwards from you negative claim (which you first say is actually possible). You are putting your own perception of reality above God.

I think it blasphemous to pose any possible scenario that God is a liar. That is my understanding of the definition of God. Even if my whole understanding of reality is completely wrong, I think I could never say that God lied to me. There is a big difference between you and me there. I am sorry if you don't understand what I mean.

Let me understand this.

You can't even define your own axioms.

You can't define "dominant", "alive", or how to decide whether a "why" question has been answered, and yet insist that questions involving those terms are critical.

You think it is blasphemy to even consider the possibility that God is a liar.

I don't see a useful way to discuss origins with someone whose concepts are so vague.

/Bevin

Bevin,

Yes I do "think it is blasphemy to even consider the possibility that God is a liar." Very much so, most definitely. But I accept that you might not see it that way.

"Dominant" and "alive" have natural meanings.

I gave you a starting point, one that as a Christian I was hoping you might be able to connect with, i.e. "Image of God" for what I meant by dominant. As in lordship of the biological kingdom that we have been given responsibility for. Certainly there is no other biological species on the planet with more power over the planet than we have. This, I thought, is self evident.

Here is a more formal definition of dominant:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dominant
"commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others"

The meaning of life. Monty python? Life, Christ brings life to us. God is the source of life. Do you have life? Is it not self evident what you have?

Here is a more formal definition of life:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/life
"the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body"

If you see that science and evolution can not establish the meanings of these things on any lesser building blocks, than they naturally mean, then you can take that as my point if you want - it would be close enough to what I meant. But, we don't deny that they are real. We accept that Life and the Image of God are real. Science doesn't know how to address those things, deconstructive ultra-rationalization doesn't know how to address those things. But, every human knows those things are real! It is meant to be philosophical, even religious perhaps, but I certainly don't think it is vague. My three year old understands the concepts of "life" and "dominance" too. I think you do to, but you are in a captious mindset about it, and that is not really how I intended it to be taken.

I certainly never insisted that those questions were critical to my main points. Actually, I believe that I said what I thought was critical, was that we are brothers in Christ. The rest seems like trivia in comparison.

Feel free to ask me a question about my thoughts on origins. My line of questions has not been productive between you and I. So don't worry about them. My questions are a bit out there, I do that sometimes. You can ask me questions and lead the discussion if you want to continue it.

PS, I know that Image of God means other things as well.

On origins of origins:

All Life Creates and Feeds Genes
Genes, Genomes, Cellular Organisms All Feed Genes

A. Gene eats gene?
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/538.page#2729

B. See Updated Life's Manifest May 2009
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=480&#entry412704
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/140/122.page#2321

For Nature, Earth's biosphere is one of the many ways of temporarily constraining an amount of ENERGY within a galaxy within a galactic cluster, thus avoiding, as long as possible, spending this particularly constrained amount as part of the fuel that maintains the clusters expansion.

C. Genes are THE Earth's organisms and ALL other organisms are their temporary take-offs

For Nature genes are genes are genes. Genes and their take-offs are the temporary energy packages and the more of them there are the more enhanced is the biosphere, Earth's life, Earth's temporary storage of constrained energy. This is the origin, the archetype, of selected modes of survival.

D. All Life Creates and Feeds Genes. Genes, Genomes, Cellular Organisms All Feed Genes.

It is not that gene eats gene. The early genes came into being by solar energy and lived a very long period solely on solar energy. Metabolic energy, the indirect exploitation of solar energy, was a much later phase in the evolution of Earth's biosphere.

However, essentially it is indeed so. All Life Creates and Feeds Genes. Genes, Genomes, Cellular Organisms, All Create And Feed Genes.

Dov Henis
(Comments from 22nd century)

Elder Paulson
Did you mean what you said, that the six day creation is really a faith statement, and not a scientific statement?

If it is a faith statement, then it is not open to discussion because faith by definition has no objective reality. There is no way to verify its truth. If you could, you wouldn't need faith. Because faith is not independently verifiable it does not belong in the science class room.

Science is not about what we cannot know. It is about what we can know. It is not about what God has not revealed but about he has already revealed.

If creation is a faith statement, then keep it in the religion class room where it belongs. Not in the science class room.

And if you really want to do us a favor, get the theologians busy figuring out how to reconcile our understanding of the Bible with the truth of God's word in nature.

Chris,
Unfortunately, unless we admit that we do not properly understand Genesis, there is no known way to resolve this issue without God appearing to be a liar.

Either God is a liar because he really created the earth over millions of years and Genesis 1 is a lie, or God created the earth 6,000 years ago in such a way that it looks like it is millions of years old. Either way God is a liar. The only way out of this dilemma is to go back to the Bible and try to understand our error.

I think it is time to go back to the Bible and do some serious study.

Hello Ron,

It's also possible that we don't understand nature properly. Or is that impossible? If it is possible that our understanding of nature is incorrect, then it is possible that we don't have to re-interpret scripture. Accepting the possibility that our understanding of nature is incorrect is the other way to resolve it.

Here is the thing. Accepting the premise of recent creation is accepting the premise that the Bible is literally correct. And if the Bible is literally correct, then we also must accept that God did tell us about what He did! If He told us what He did and if it turns out that this is actually what He did, then how can it be said that He lied? If what He did and what He said are the same thing, then this means that He told us the truth! Also, if what He did and what He said are the same thing, then the problem is not God's fault!

If we accept recent creation then we also have to accept that we were told about it! So, even if it appears otherwise, it is not coherent to claim that God lied if recent creation is true. If creation is literally correct, then the remaining possibility for those who hold other theories, is that us humans have been deceived by our own choice, because we disagree with what the Bible claims that God says. He told us the truth but allowed us to believe what we want.

It doesn't make sense to suggest that the possibility of the Bible being correct leads to the Bible being incorrect about what God said. The Bible's claims are internally consistent with God not being a liar.

You are claiming that if the Bible is correct in the claim of recent creation, then the Bible is false about this same claim. That is absurd - how can it be both correct and false at the same time talking about the same claim?

Now, OK, maybe we are wrong in our understanding about creation, and then we would also have to accept that Genesis is not literal. That is also internally consistent.

Both theories are internally consistent, in that neither of them require God to be a liar! But to mix claims from one theory to falsify the other theory is a logical error.

Anyway, whatever. I can also understand a different definition of lying. And that is God at least allows some humans to be deceived. I mean we can't all be right! So, it's impossible for me to win this argument if this is the definition of lying that you are using.

I wonder if I could have said all of that in about three sentences! It's obviously something that get's me stirred up. That teaches me to blog after 30hrs work.

How about this? If creation is correct, then it's possible that we might be deceived to believe in other theories, but only after God told the truth. Is that an unfair statement?

You know this seems pretty simple to me:

IF you do not believe in a literal 6 day creation

OR

IF you do not believe that God gave Ellen G. White the gift of prophecy

Why dont you go join another 7th day church. I am sure there are churches that will appease you in your beliefs.

No one should be teaching, etc. at any of our SDA places that do not believe in the doctrines of the Bible. With all their intelligence they will be able to find a job somewhere else where they can teach to their hearts content the error they want to teach. Actually we really need to be praying for those who are in error, and for ourselves that we do not let Satan deceive us like he did Eve.

I am so thankful for those like David Asserick, Doug Batchelor, and many others who take a stand for the truth. This is what God needs today.

Tp suggest that those who do all believe in lock-step with SDA fundamentals should leave, is like asking children who believe differently from their parents to disown their parentage.

Many of those who question the literality of the Fundamentals have been Adventists for several generations and feel it is their church, their heritage and unless their local church asks them to leave, they will be welcome there, period.

Where will you find any denomination where all the members march in lock-step? Neither in the SDA church nor the largest Christian denomination.

As for David's remarks about my teaching a SS. class, it is always the prerogative of the SS leader to ask for anyone to assume that responsibility, usually in the church I attend it is on a rotating basis each month. In the more than two dozen active members in that class I doubt than any single individual holds to the Fundamentals as book states. As a matter of fact, I am certain than many do not: which is why our classes are always interesting dialogue and no one is censored and we all expect to enjoy free and open discussion. How many SS classes resemble that? More certainly should.