Given your biology training, Aimee, I particularly appreciated your review.
However, it was your comment about Stein being a speech writer for Nixon that really struck me. Just as Nixon always seemed to think that people were out to get him, the freedom of speech approach of this movie seems to suggest that scientists are always out to discredit the ID people. Too bad the movie did not move the conversation past that point.

William Dembski, who wrote "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology:" in 1999, had this to say:

"[A]ny view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient....[T]he conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ."

In 2004, in "The Design Revolution" Dembski wrote:

"Intelligent design is not an evangelic Christian thing, or a generally Christian thing or even a generically theistic thing....Intelligent design is an emerging scientific research program. Design theorists attempt to demonstrate its merits fair and square in the scientific world--without appealing to religious authority."

Is he illustrating evolution in his own thinking?

The major point of the film is the claim that there is NO controversy among scientists over Evolutionism or Darwinism. The film documents the very opposite. It shows that there really is controversy. That there is huge censorship. And people loose their jobs over it.

If you are looking for a debate on the merits of ID over Darwinism, this is not the film for you.

Instead it was designed to expose the public to the reality of intellectual censorship by academia and the media.

Christian Skeptic

Interesting quotes Elaine.

What web site did you cut and past this from?

Christian Skeptic

What happened to all the comments?

Oh this is a new page. My bad.

Thanks for such a thoughtful review.

The Stony Brook Independent critic notes:

There are, however, significant differences between what was portrayed in the film and what actually happened. In the film, an editor for a scientific journal, Richard Stenberg, was demoted because he approved a publication of an essay associated with intelligent design. What Stein doesn't tell you is that he already had plans to step down from his position before he even approved the publication. Also not mentioned is the way in which he published the essay; he self-approved the publication, bypassing the necessary process of peer review. These are two significant details Stein failed to mention, a reoccurring trend in the film.

Aimee, you might want to reconsider getting the DVD for the cell sequence. It was copied, (with changes) without permission from a movie made for Harvard. In fact, the Discovery Institute was slapped down for using it without permission and credit first, (Harvard threatened legal action) but I guess the Expelled people didn't get the memo. Or, more likely, they thought they could copy a lot of it while changing some things and get away with it.

Needless to say, there is more legal action rumbling as the original company that made it for Harvard is none too happy. And the Expelled people are using the dustup as an another example of how the "truth" is being persecuted.

If you want to see the original - which many say is even more stunning - you can google Harvard's "Inner Life of the Cell."

Is this it?

http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/

Clip Credits:

Inner Life of the Cell animation conception and scientific content by Alain Viel and Robert A. Lue.

Animation by John Liebler/XVIVO.

Stony Brook Independent:
1: True, Sternberg was stepping down as editor, but that was not the position that he was demoted from. Strike one.
2: Sternberg submitted the paper for peer review to 3 scholars in Ivy league schools per SOP. Their reviews are in the files (or used to be) of the journal and the journal board has read them. To cover their asses, the journal board is whining that Sternberg handled the paper himself, as was his prerogative as editor-in-chief and according to SOP, rather than passing the paper to an associate editor. Strike two.

The Stony Brook Independent story is a lie. Go to Sternberg's web page to get the rest of the story.

As for loco Yoko Ono:
May 3: The Fair Use Project of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society announced Thursday that it would serve as legal counsel for the producers of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” in their right to use a clip of John Lennon’s song “Imagine” in its pro-intelligent design documentary. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080503/32230_Stanford_Legal_Group_Defends_'Expelled'_Against_Lawsuit.htm

And the Expelled producers have file for a ruling on the fair use of the cell clip. April 14
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/chronicle_lead_lawsuit.php

Christian Skeptic

Sorry, have to disagree, though I do agree that Dawkins appears to be a bit of a jerk. But talk about the emperor having no clothes, the only substantive part of ID is as a negative argument that diametrically opposed to evolution, otherwise it has nothing of substance to offer science. Imagine teaching ecology in school without a fundamental understanding of Darwinism and evolution. What would ID tell these students, other than the showing and teaching these alleged students the incredible complexity of nature? What’s the explanation for these systems and their numerous interactions? God did it of course. Cool huh? Sorry, that’s not science and I challenge any ID proponent to demonstrate a single predictive model that ID can make regarding living organisms and their present day ecosystems.

There are no scientific ID models, they got nothing but faith and fussy logic like this: Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people- Quote from Ben Stein

To your point about equating the holocaust with Darwinism the Anti-Defamation League said this:

The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness. Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.

The point is I have my faith too but the difference is I don’t subject you to it. Science is not faith but a way of reasoning and we need all the good scientists we can get with the way we are tanking the environment.

Erik John Bertel
Author of Flore s Girl:The Children God Forgot and the Millenniumwriting.com blog

Erik:
"I challenge any ID proponent to demonstrate a single predictive model that ID can make regarding living organisms and their present day ecosystems."

Perhaps you ought to actually read ID material.

Christian Skeptic

Yes that's it Alex, thanks.

Sorry Alex. That's not it. Close but no cigar.

Christian Skeptic

Christian Skeptic,

Actually you are wrong with that assertion and I have spent some time analyzing the Intelligent Design and creationist literature. I have actually created a spreadsheet listing hundreds ID papers to show the topics and the true nature of these arguments. I do so to understand the logic of these proponents so I can use this material in my novel and secondly, because some of the assertions are just so damn funny! Arguments such as when major phyla were introduced during the days of creation or evidence for how Noah managed to grab two of each species is out there and makes up the bulk of this alleged fundamentalist research. A T. Rex running around the Garden of Eden having a veggie salad before the prefall is gold I tell you!

The more substantial and negative research purporting to disprove evolution and Darwinism usually falls into one of the two camps of either irreducible complexity (life is too complex for time and random change to create) or a teleological argument (there is order in the universe so it was designed, ok I dumbed these down). Greater minds than my own, have responded to Dembski and his followers with effective rejoinders to these arguments and since I’m just a simple a biologist by training I will busy myself with ID assertions regarding living ecosystems. What I am looking for is an ID predictive model that describes the functionality and modeling of an ecosystem? Remember, you can't use competition and evolution to describe the changing ecosystem or fluctuating species populations. I bet ya you can't. Yet using the horrible Darwinist and evolutionist's theories we can model the environment and I ask you to reference the classic Wilson & Bossert's Island Biogeography and its modeling of species equilibrium.

What would ID have to say? Wow, this is ecosystem is so complex, forget about understanding this, this had to be an intelligent designer at work. And that's fine but it's not science and you can't do anything with it.

Do you think this is all esoteric science mumble-jumble and has no relevance in your day to day life? Well, think again when you have that flu shot this fall as scientists playing guessing games regarding the mutating influenza strains that originate from China.

And if you have such an ID paper that does predictive modeling please point me in the direction so I can give you my critique. This is how science works; it is called peer review and it’s a form of academic democracy. If a theory can stand up is it accepted by the scientific community until something new comes along that better fits the facts or until something causes it to be disproven. If wrong it gets thrown under the bus such as what happened with the arguments for irreducible complexity. It was debated and was discounted years ago and now the ID proponents want to take the argument to the public in the name of free speech because the public doesn’t know jack squat about science. And if that’s not true then why do we keep bringing Indian engineers into this country? This debate has been going for some time at my millenniumwritng.com blog.

Reconciling your faith should never be an easy exercise and we don't need to give people another excuse not to think. We have American Idol for that!

Erik John Bertel
Author Flores Girl: The Children God Forgot and the MillenniumWriting.com Blog

Seems like this discussion is getting involved. I will leave my view to this. Either the Bible is authoritative or not. Either it is what it claims to be or it is not. My position is that the Bible is authoritative. When the Bible says that creation did occur, I believe that regardless of what the present scientific understanding is. My faith in the Bible as God's Word is not dependent upon science.

Are there things that are difficult to explain from the creationist standpoint? Yes, and some things can't be at this point, such as tracing mitochondrial DNA back thousands and thousand of years predating our understanding of the age of this planet. All we know is a basic synopsis of creation - that He created this world in 6 days and rested the 7th and that this world is approximately 6000 years old. God only reveals in the Bible the things necessary for salvation. He doesn't go into detail of the science behind all He did and does. This is becoming rather protracted so I'll close with this. I believe that God is not bound by the laws of nature except as He chooses to operate within those confines so I am not going to rule out the possibility of there being explainations that contradict our feeble abilities at understanding. This does not mean I stop searching, testing, learning. It should compel me to seek and understand - afterall, nature testifies of God and His creative power.

Those Seventh Day Adventists who believe in a short-age earth need to be aware the ID movement disagrees with them. ID believes the Earth is as old as traditional evolutionists say it is.

The evidence for an old age Earth is very strong. It includes

> the depth of coral reefs (3500 feet deep in places!)

> the movement of continents (fossils matching on both sides of the line in the rock before the split, then diverging in the rock above)

> the bending and cooling of huge rock formations

> accumulation of meteorites by glacial movement in Antarctica

> volcanic chains such as Hawaii

> meteor impact chains

> the White Cliffs of Dover

> the fossil record itself

> DNA studies

If ID is right, then traditional SDA'ism and the short-age earth Flood model is wrong.

The requirement to believe in a short-age earth should be dropped, and SDA pulpits and publications should start treating people who don't believe it but who are otherwise are within the SDA theological circle with acceptance and respect.

/Bevin

ID, Creationism, and Evolution.
Here in Europe we find this never-ending debate of your's in USA quite curious.
This is no issue in Norway at all, except among the very few Adventists here, and possiby a few other ultra-conservative Christians and Muslims.
In this area, science has passed us silently like giant ships in the night without being noticed by the SDA church. In every debate within the chuch, and with people outside the church, it is always about how science is able to prove this and that, carbon dating, fossils, the age og Grand Canyon etc.etc. All these oppositions to modern science come from laypersons, not qualified for a discussion of that kind at all. This is waste of time, nonsense, detrimental to our mission, and has nothing to do at all with the Gospel.
For us here in Europe, this is a strange phenomenon in the American conservative churches, and in conservative Islam as well. In western Europe most Christians accept modern natural science without having any problem with the faith.
The issue is very similar to Galileo's experience in the 17th century, except for the fact that he was unhumanly treated. The issue was: What was moving, the sun or the earth? The church was absolutely right that the sun was moving, and not the earth, because many texts i Scripture say so, and anybody observed it with their own eyes. This dilemma was understandable, and Galilei was condemned, in spite of the fact that the Pope secretly agreed with him.
The church in the 17th centyry had indeed two compelling reasons to condemn his view. The church today has no compelling reason to condemn the evolution theory. Creationism as a scientific theory was falsified about 150 years ago.
I am wondering why this debate continues, because it is absurd. It is quite absurd that Geoscience Institute is called a scientific institution in spite of the fact that it does not follow normal and fair scientific procedures in its research. In addition, it is not a part of Loma Linda University at all, and can probably never be.
I am wondering when the Adventist Church shall begin to discuss how to intertpret the first 10 - 15 chapters of the Bible. In evey dialogue I have taken part, I have tried to turn the discussion over to the Bible, and how to understand it, but it has always been turned down. More or less illiterate persons are always intersted in discussing and attacking science, but almost never willing to discuss how to understand the Bible in spite of the fact that they are Christians.

For those with some time on their hands, here is a very thoughtful and in depth review of the movie written by a Christian biologist. The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is an organization of scientists committed to Christianity and their website asa3.org is a very interesting place to wander around.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Schloss200805.pdf

Too bad Kristenfj that you are clueless about the difference between science and the religion of Naturalism and Evolutionism. I find it amazing the you are so blaze about something that totally and completely submarines the things you say you believe. Evolution IS NOT modern Science. It is a religious dogma.

It is also too bad that you have bought in to the lie about Galilie. The issue at the time was not the church against science, but the "science" of Ptolemy held by clerical philosophers enamored with pagan Greek philosophy against new interpretation of the heavens by Copernicus and Galilie. Many Clerics supported Galilie and he even used some churches for his experiments. The issue was not about science vs. the Bible, but about who had the power of the Pope behind them.

You have also bought into the manufactured lie that Creation theory was falsified in the 1800s. In fact Creationism was ignored by hypocrites who were full of themselves. A study of the British scriptural geologists shows this true.

Further Creationism is not and has never been a hypothesis. Evolutionists invented the lie that it was, so that they could fool the public into rejecting Christianity in subtle ways.

The first 10 to 15 chapters of Genesis stand by themselves. They are fact. The Creation and Noah's Flood are not hypotheses to be tested by science. They are facts within which science is done and interpreted. Just as Naturalism and Evolutionism are not hypothesis to be tested by Science. Rather they are the facts within which what some erroneously call "modern" science is typically interpreted.

It is really had to believe that there are people in the Adventist church who are so utterly clueless about Creationism! What planet did you come from?

Christian Skeptic

/Bevin:
Yes, Most IDers are OEC or Evolutionists.

But what I find incredible is that you trot out a list of totally discredited evidences of old ages. All of these have been answered by Creationists long ago. Creationwiki offers common responses. http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Main_Page

You also need to realize that the Creation and Noah's Flood are not hypotheses that can be or even need to be proved or falsified by science. They are facts within which science is done.

While SDA's typically believe that life on earth did not originated until about 6000 years ago, and that the Flood is responsible for the entire Phanerozoic record, many agree with Ellen that the Universe, including this planet is probably very old. However, that does not allow for Evolutionism to be considered.

Christian Skeptic

Hypochondria DNA lie

What is usually not known about this is that a multiplier was added to the actual data to get "acceptable" ages for evolutionism. When the multiplier is removed the ages are well within 6000 years.

Christian Skeptic

Kristen
I agree with you, although I do think you misrepresent the Norwegian SDA church somewhat. I can't imagine that creationism has been abandoned by church members in general. I'm sure that my generation leading SDAs in Norway, such as Gunnar Jørgensen and Roger Robertsen, are just as conservative as Cliff Goldstein.

But you raise an important point when you argue that a literal 7 day creation week some 6000 years ago must be put in the context of the first fifteen chapters of Genesis, which obviously are mythological, in spite of Allen's protests to the contrary.

To start with, Gen 1 and 2 contain two creation stories, not one. The first one sees creation arising out of water, the second one, out of the desert.

When it comes to Noah's Ark, in spite of the heroic attempts made by creationists, how can anybody seriously believe that all the world's living organisms could fit into a wooden crate-craft of the indicated dimensions? (I'm sorry Allen--I'm not going to argue the case.)

And would anybody seriously argue that God began to get worried that the tower builders of Babel would pierce the firmament and enter heaven itself? That he had to "come down" and take a look at what the varmints were up to?

The literal reading of the first 11 chapters of Genesis was Ingersoll's bread and butter, it was the armory of every village atheist out to to taunt his church-going acquaintances. The mainstream of Christianity conceded the point in the 19th century and moved on. And that's also why mainstream church have found it easier than evangelical churches (still largely fundamentalistic) to move beyond classic creationism.

Cliff Goldstein, though, has more than a point: You can't embrace evolution without having to radically rethink Christianity, if philosophical consistency is important to you.

Aage Rendalen

PS Beth linked to a fascinating review of the Ben Stein movie, written by a Christian evolutionist--possibly the most impressive example I have ever seen of fair-minded argumentation. Check it out:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Schloss200805.pdf

Well,... Allen Roy old Boy, you've got quite a hard sell. I myself am a very skeptical Christian.

Rendalen
Yes there two accounts of creation. The first one is what God told Adam and Eve about things which they could not know. The second account beginning in 2:4b was by Adam telling his story from his point of view. As Randall Yonker, in "Creation, Catastrophe and Calvary" points out, the first part of Adams story (2:5) talks of things that came about because of sin, before which the rest of Adam's account occur. They were not about creation.

No one has ever claimed that ALL THE WORLDS ORGANISMS would be on the Ark. In fact the Bible says that only those organisms that breathed through their nostrils and lived on land were on the Ark. Therefore no insects, no aquatic organisms. Its been estimated that one only needs some 16000 animals on the Ark. Only the committed would doubt. And the Flood and the Ark are not hypotheses to be tested by science, they are facts.

The tower was a symbol of rebellion against God's command to populate the entire world. How could anyone be so stupid to think that it had anything to do with a human tower reaching heaven. Sheesh, what an imbecile.

Ingersoll was a boring buffoon. But there are always the ignorant who can be buffaloed. You should know. Just because the apostate churches are again being led astray doesn't mean we can be. Like they say, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

Christian Skeptic

Roy
I didn't think much of Richard Jensen's crusade againsts science and his blind-faith approach to knowledge about creation, but his appeal for civilized dialogue was something I agreed with. His five point summary was actually good.

It's not very helpful to have Dawkins (whose Blind Watchmaker, in my opinion is brilliant) call people like yourself 'idiots' and 'morons'. You're obviously not lacking in intelligence. I shared your point of view years ago myself, and I was no less intelligent back then than I am now.

I'm sure that you have been stung by invectives thrown at you for your creationist stand, but I don't see that much is gained by appropriating Dawkin's language. I could care less personally that you call me an imbecile and lash out at people in rather intemperate ways for not sharing your opinions but it makes it almost impossible for there to be a meeting of minds.

Fundamentalism dictates that people who don't agree with you and the position of your church are your enemies (just look up how many times "enemy" and "enemies" are used in the EGW index, and see who she's targeting). I wish you'd understand that while I disagree with you, I'm not your enemy. Intemperate language is entertaining but it's impossible to sit down and reason with somebody who rants.

Aage

Aage:

I know that most SDAs i Norway are creationists, but the memership is not much more than about 4000 today. A recent survey has revealed that only about 12% of the Norwegian population (probably in most European countries as well) condemn or doubt the evolution theory, and the correspondig figure in USA is 62%. The fundamentalist churches in Norway, the SDA church included, are heavily influenced by their American sister churches and their way of thinking. But the issue does not interest the majority of churchmembers, and most SDAs will not be affected at all or become anxious if the chuch should allow for the accept of modern natural science. The habitual attacks on natural science on the part of the church do nor interest most SDAs, because the issue has a special interest for the very few only.

I beleive that modern science will be accepted by the SDA church in the future, if time shall last, because my church has always been open to modern science and stresses the importance of education. But we shall have to wait for a new generation.

Traditional creationism is a strange phenomenon, like a modern kind og illiteracy, even among people with academic education. And I feel that this kind of modern superstition is a tragedy.

I am no scholar, but I know that there is a lot of fiction and poetry in the Bible. The Creation stories contain beautiful poetry. Instead of attacking modern science again and again, and thereby creating barriers between us and the people we want to win, why are we not able to accept Psalm 90:4 and 2.Peter 3:8 which says that a day in Scripture is not necessarily 24 literal hours?

A literal interpretation of the creation stories results in contraditions. The two creation stories seem to contrtadict each others. That the sun was created on the fourth day in spite of three previous sunsets is also a literal contradiction.

To my knowledge so far, every time modern natural science is attacked by SDAs or others, it is made by a person who is no professional in the relevant issue. It is supposed to make some impression on the audience when the attacker is a professor etc., but if modern biology is attacked, it may be made by a scholar, but never by a biologist, or if modern geology is being attacked, it may be by an biologist or something else, but never by a geologist and so on.

In this case we as a people have to reconsider our attitude to the ninth commandment. By the way, Gunnar Jørgensen and Roger Robertsen are my friends, and in spite of the fact that we disagree on natural science, I have never seen that kind of attitude like that of Clifford Goldstein.

Kristen
In defense of Cliff Goldstein, his stridency is literary, not personal. He's actually a nice guy--but with strong opinions, just like Roger and Gunnar.

Most of us sound much harsher when we "opinionize" in print than when we sit down with people. There is something very liberating about writing, but the downside is that we easily get ahead of ourselves and end up offending people and in the process, misrepresenting ourselves.

Most people are better and usually more moderate than their rhetoric lets on.

In Ellen's writings the word enemy is almost exclusively applied to Satan. Satan is God's enemy. God is not Satan's enemy.

As Christians we are to love our enemies. This does not mean we are to love people we hate, because we love them, but love people who hate us. This is the position that Ellen takes when she uses the term enemy. It's not people whom she hates, but whom hate Christians.

Allen

I do not think that the Bible believers must become experts in natural sciences, in order to better interpret Genesis. Rather scientists should read more carefully the Bible, if their intellectual game must have any sense.
Besides, we need the Bible, since it supports our hope of salvation and eternal life, and we are naturally affraid of flirting with any other "truth" (including the scientific), that robs our only hope. We cannot have both evolution and faith. The God of evolution is a monster worse than a devil, while the Biblical God is clearly the loving Creator. Thus, if scientists wish to have the respect of believers, they should pay also respect to the hopes and faith and fears of these people.
This is a hard game. If you take Genesis 1-15 out of my Bible, you may tear out the ten commandments and the Jesus' story too. I do not need any God or Christ who sells me myths as natural history, and then expects me to believe in resurrection or in soul immortality, whatever. Do not wonder that believers use to see many scientists and philosophers as enemies of their faith. As regards to hate, let's not be hypocrites, since it is both natural and in some respect even biblical:
"Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?" NRS Psalm 139:21.

What will Florin Laiu say to the countless millions of Christians who accept ordinary natural science and believe that the Creation story is not to be interpreted literally? Are they not Christians? Do they not have the right to beleive that their sins are forgiven because of Christ’s death and resurrection? Do you have the right to judge them to perdition?

It seems to me that creationists have a serious problem. The knowledge provided by science will fall over all men like an avalanche, and we must be on top of it by accepting facts, or be crushed by it.

Do you build your faith on Creationism, and opposition to scientific facts, or on Christ?

To accept ordinary science does not at all mean that the Creation story is excluded from the Bible, that is a terrible misunderstanding. I beleive in the Creation story, I beleive in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, and everything in the Bible, but I am not able to beleive that all of it shall be taken literally.

Creationist need a warning. If you are too harsh and judgmental, what will you say the day you discover that you have been wrong?

Kristen,
I am surpriced that you don't see the scientific approach in Creationism. We don't have to abolish science in order to be Creationists. Actually, the evolution theory is having a hard time because the evidence found through science doesn't really help in supporting the theory. The problem is that this is the only theory that is taught in school, so the normal student doesn't get the opportunity to make up his own mind about the evidence at hand. Creationists look at the evidence from science, and with scientific research come to a different conclusion than Evolutionists. I guess the problem is that there are different kinds of Creationists as Allen pointed out in another posts, eg. old earth, young earth (Allen made a very good explanation on the distinction there) and then you can perhaps get some unscientific ones as well who can bring incredibility to the rest. There was a big discussion about this on other posts where Allen made some very good points there with some thorough explanations (can’t find the posts anymore).

I think people should just study this matter for themselves with a critical mind, they might be surpriced of what they conclude! I only learned evolution at school, but later started to study the ID and Creationism, and have myself come to the conclution of YEC, i.e. Young Earth Creationist (wasn’t that the term you used in your explanation Allen?).

Thanks for your posts Allen, I appreciated them very much.

Sandra
The problem is not creationism--the idea that God is the creator. The problem is with "scientific creationism"--the hubristic term applied to something which is not science (not falsifiable).

The only thing that is scientific about that kind of creationism is using scientific principles to attack a scientifically based (and falsifiable) theory--evolution.

Popular creationism works on the principle that "you're wrong, therefore I'm right."

Sandra:

I have tried to defend creationism for many years. In order to be competent I have read about 20 volumes on creationsim, and in addition articles in perodicals. At the oustset I beleived that this was from God because much of it was written by SDAs. I have been wrestling with this problem for 40 years, so I think I know what I am talking about.

All these books and articles were more or less attacks on regular science, and all of them contained phantastic theories, biases and lies. Only when I started to read the Bible and a little regular science I saw that there is no antagonism between science and the Bible. But the Bible does not sanction lies and unsound arguments. I understood that I had a problem with facts versus certain interpretaions of some Bible passages, so I had to read my Bible another time. So I did, and got peace in my heart.

The only thing I can do, is to warn against all this creationist stuff, and read the Bible instead. There you can read about Gods commandments and the faith of Jesus. That is what we all need so desperately without knowing it.

If God said to you: If I created the world i 6 literal days or 6 billion years, how does that concern you? Follow me!

The silly attacks on science on the part of Christians should stop, it is blocking the way and making stumbling stones for numberless people who otherwise would have joined us. Anybody have the the freedom to beleive what they want, even in a flat earth, and still be good Christians, and saved for Christ. But if we take the role as attackers and accusers, we have the onus of proof, and we shall be judged according to the same standard as we judge others.

The two most efficient methods to produce atheists is proclaiming the eternal hellfire, and creationism.The first one is frightening, the other one is ridiculous.

Sandra:

I have tried to defend creationism for many years. In order to be competent I have read about 20 volumes on creationsim, and in addition articles in perodicals. At the oustset I beleived that this was from God because much of it was written by SDAs. I have been wrestling with this problem for 40 years, so I think I know what I am talking about.

All these books and articles were more or less attacks on regular science, and all of them contained phantastic theories, biases and lies. Only when I started to read the Bible and a little regular science I saw that there is no antagonism between science and the Bible. But the Bible does not sanction lies and unsound arguments. I understood that I had a problem with facts versus certain interpretaions of some Bible passages, so I had to read my Bible another time. So I did, and got peace in my heart.

The only thing I can do, is to warn against all this creationist stuff, and read the Bible instead. There you can read about Gods commandments and the faith of Jesus. That is what we all need so desperately without knowing it.

If God said to you: If I created the world i 6 literal days or 6 billion years, how does that concern you? Follow me!

The silly attacks on science on the part of Christians should stop, it is blocking the way and making stumbling stones for numberless people who otherwise would have joined us. Anybody have the the freedom to beleive what they want, even in a flat earth, and still be good Christians, and saved for Christ. But if we take the role as attackers and accusers, we have the onus of proof, and we shall be judged according to the same standard as we judge others.

The two most efficient methods to produce atheists is proclaiming the eternal hellfire, and creationism.The first one is frightening, the other one is ridiculous.

Christian Skeptic,

You boldly make assertions and attack others while claiming to know the truth but you never answer direct questions. I have studied the creationist literature, have you or have you relegated yourself to a facile study of the bible? You obviously have never studied biology since you believe in a 6,000 year old earth and Noah but you will never answer why we do not see a genetic bottleneck in genome of the surviving species of the flood?

And just to keep you consistent, and since I know you don't believe in genetics, I will remind you not to bother with that flu shot this fall. Your ignorance and your random personal attacks of other fundamentalist groups that disagree with you, indicates to me that you are poorly home schooled.

All I can say is beware of men who claim to speak for god!

Erik John Bertel
Author of Flores Girl: The Children God Forgot and the Millenniumwriting.com blog

We know that there was a flood some 4000 years ago. We know there was a creation of life on this planet some 6000 years ago. These are facts handed down to us by God through his prophets.

These are not hypotheses to be proven nor disproven by science. The natural world is to be understood and scientifically studied within these facts. If there are supposed conflicts between these facts and interpretation of nature within the evolutionary view then the evolutionary interpretation is wrong.

As Sandra said, I have made many comments on this topic in much more detail here: http://spectrummagazine.org/articles/spectrum_interview/2008/05/01/new_m...

Read those. The problem with these comment places is that you end up having to repeat yourself. I don't have time to address all these issues again that I already address before.

Christian Skeptic

Dear Kristen
You have written about the eternal destiny of "the countless millions of Christians who accept ordinary natural science and believe that the Creation story is not to be interpreted literally". I am not here to decide the salvation of anyone, and since I am SDA, I believe that even some pagans "that have served God without knowing Him" will be saved. However, to have the true faith and worship is not an indiferent thing. Truth leads us to the knowledge of the true God and salvation, and error alters the image of God for us and in us, and leads us to perdition. Christians who have their Bible, but prefer to lean on other experts in origins rather than on God's inspired authors, chose a most dangerous way. Their worldview will influence their faith and their life, and finally it is no wonder to end up in the final distructions of the rebels. You cannot say that Bible or Christianity are not relevant or essential, because there will be people saved without the knowledge of the Law, and without any kind of Christology!
I don't say that people who cling to the cross of Jesus will be rejected, no matter what [mis]conceptions happen to entertain. God only understand the spiritual and intellectual struggle of anyone. Both sincere evolutionists and creationists must be respected. But one cannot respect a theory who runs against his sense of life. If one loves the ways of this world, will naturally hate the Bible, reject it or at least read it at variance with its authors. If one loves the biblical claims and aims, he/she cannot welcome any idea that undermines his/her faith and hope.
When you face an avalanche, you will most probably die, no matter if it falls over you, or if you sit on the top of it ! I see no need, as a Christian, to stay in front of this philosophical avalanche.
I was educated in a communist country, in an educational system that was both totalitarian and atheistic. Evolutionism was the cultural daily bread of the communists, and they fed us with that spirit and "science" from the primary school. We did not have our confessional schools, we have no right to even think of it. I had no other scientific theory to resist evolutionism, but I made my own creationist mind, first from the Bible, and second, even from various scientific books which I discovered in the public library. I rejoiced very much when I discovered scientific books that, although promoting evolutionism, they showed important limits and flaws of this theory. Later we received illegal foreign publications that promoted creationism and I was satisfied with that stuff, at least for a while.
Now, people who claim to be SDAs tell me that evolutionism is purely scientific truth and creationism is a lie. I did not keep the pace with the natural science's progress, but I made professional progress in Bible reading, and I claim to understand what Genesis has to say. I am perfectly convinced that there is no honest way to read the Bible in an evolutionary key or code. Bible may be true, or it may be false, but it cannot be honestly made to support evolution. Besides, you cannot have Jesus, if you blame or distort Moses. Genesis is the actual basis of all the Bible. The beautiful story of Jesus is good and true, BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE, not viceversa. When you overthrow or rewrite the Bible's basis, Genesis, you have only a chain of myths and legends combined with partial history. You cannot have both evolution and miracles. The Cross has no meaning without Genesis. So I am amazed to learn about "Christians" who expect salvation through Jesus, while they are evolutionists. It is a sad type of Christ, one who told us reverently of "the beginning" of Man and Woman (Mt 19:4.8), while he knew that there was no such beginning, because He actually had chosen to "create" through a very long and painful evolutionary process...
The Creation story is not a parable, nor symbolic vision. It is clearly intended as a simple story of our origins. We cannot claim too much from this story, I know that the author uses cultural language, but even though sometimes his language may be disputed, his message is nevertheless clear and direct: It speaks of a FIAT creation, it happened in a natural week, and God did it this way to give us a life model. You have no right to read allegorically the Genesis story. Tales and parables have each their own style and marks. Genesis 1-11 is clearly intended to be understood in a literal manner. We have no right to resort to a figurative reading just because the text does not agree with the results of the science. If science is the final authority, then you cannot have Bible in the same role. If one happened to sink in the swamp of evolutionism, he/she needs a miracle to help him get out of, and a special disposition and genius to discover (or at least imagine) new creationist answers to new evolutionary reasonings.
I agree with you that some creationists (including me) tend to be too harsh and judgmental. This is not good, but it can be easily understood and excused. I understand the case of those who honestly and even painfully converted to the evolutionary worldview. But conviction and arguments are matters of logics and psychology, not necessarily of truth. You should admit that evolutionists are also sarcastic and judgmental with their opponents. But harshness is normal in the evolutionary process. My counsel is, pray and find at least one honest and well informed creationist scientist, to help you get out of this intelectual mess.

Dear Florin:

When I read your long and sermonlike contribution to our discussion, it is like meeting myself in the door. When I was a newborn Christian, I beleived that the Bible was almost inerrant, and every single piece of information in it was precisely true, and that parts of the Holy Book at least, were verbally inspired. That is often the case when a young newborn Christian joyfully accepts Christ and chooses a denomination like the SDA church. My walk with God has always lead me to more knowledge, and sometimes it has been painful. But true knowledge will in the long run give blessings and happiness anyway. That is my experience.

Thank you for saying: ”I understand the case of those who honestly and even painfully converted to the evolutionary worldview.” That is at least a little hope for me in your eyes if I understand you correctly. You do not call me a nazi or satanist.

”Evolutionists are also sarcastic,” you say. Of course, because not all evolutionists are Christians. Prof. Dawkins even tries to prove that God does not exist. That is abuse of science, and has one single purpose, to provoke fundamentalistic Christians and trap them into hopeless debates. And when he has achieved that, he laughs.

But the sarcasms, the lies, the evasions of truth, and the bitter condemnations of all creationists, Christians or not, always come from people who are Christians themselves.

That is not Christian behaviour, it is not easy to understand, and it can not be excused.

When creationists say that if you accept evolution, you cannot be a Christian, and can not be saved, is a dangerous assertion, because a lot of Christians will become atheists when they discover the truth, and they will blame the Bible, the pastors, Ellen White, and the church. A tragedy like that should be totally unecessesary.

Kristen:

The religion of Naturalism and its dogma Evolutionism are not compatible in anyway with Christianity. You have been hoodwinked.

I've made several detailed comments on the subject here on Spectrum magazine pages.

http://spectrummagazine.org/articles/spectrum_interview/2008/05/01/new_m...

Please read them.

Christian Skeptic

Dear Kristen

Thank you for reply, and apologize for my poor English (I learned it just by reading books). I don't like to sermonize, it was not by intention. In fact I am only a Bible theologian, concerned with biblical languages and auxiliary skills (hermeneutics, exegesis), with specialization in Hebrew. I teach biblical exegesis and apocalyptics, but I am not a pastor or an ordained minister, I never was. My father was a minister, and I used to help him. I actually "preach", whenever I am invited, but actually I use the pulpit fot teaching people.

My experience with the Bible was similar to yours, I always assumed that the Bible is innerant. I fell in love with Bible reading and study, therefore when I discovered some discrepancy, I tried to solve them within an innerantist frame. I gradually became dissatisfied with my "solutions" (original and borrowed!), but I discovered a realistic view about the inspiration of the Bible in EGW writings (1 Selected Mesages), and that view helped me treat fairer the human contribution in the Bible and EGW writings. I am now the last one to believe in Bible innerancy, but I truly believe that, while words, rhetorics, way of thinking, literary genre and style etc., are human aspects in the Bible, the message itself is divinely inspired, since authors had been under the control of the Holy Spirit.
Heaven is not interested in minor things that have no relationship to our salvation, since the Bible was given us for practical purposes.

I can't say that the cosmologic model of Bible authors is true. They really had no correct knowledge about the Earth as a planet, or about Sun and Moon, they had no idea about the actual center of emotions in the human system, and at least some believed that Earth is sitted on seas, and that Moon can affect people ("moonstrike"). However, if we alter or doubt also the Bible message, there is nothing God-inspired left in it. If I take out or make forced explanations of miracles of the Bible, what was left for me as truth? You have all right to choose to believe whatever you want, but for me, if I am to accept an evolutionist interpretation of Genesis, this is clearly a violation of the author's intent, to say nothing about the awfulness of such scientific model. The intention of Bible authors was to show that God performed creation as a miracle, by His command, just like Jesus performed miracles of healing and resurrection. I leave evolutionism to those who cling to the pagan hope of soul-immortality, but I cannot have in one hand evolution, and in the other bodily resurrection. The God of evolution is not the God of the Bible. You may harmonize him easier with buddhism, even catholicism and derivations, but not with Moses.

I respect your opinion, and I feel you still cling to the Bible and SDA-ism because you cannot let go the Christian Hope. It is a desperate situation, and I pray God help you find a better way to see the scientific aspect of the matter. In the same time, I cannot stop saying that Dawkins' position is more consistent with evolution. The natural end of evolutionism is to draw the image of a monster God, or better to expell him out of any cosmogonic model.

Therefore, it is good to be newborn Christian every day -- why only once in a life. Evolutionism is eventually, not a definitive explanation of all natural data. It has important flaws, and let us not hurry to abandon any form of scientific creationism, just because some creationists do not match the standards of science and honesty. There are not a few scientists with a professional knowledge of evolutionism, nevertheless they find more relevant Genesis one. Why not contact our scientists at GRI ? I don't say you cannot be saved. I just say that salvation is not only a first experience of God's forgiveness, nor only the final liberation of this world. We need daily salvation, basically from sin, but also from any dangerous path. You and me have been saved, but today you need desperately a new salvation. God bless you as I wish for me !

Florin
Don't you think it is more important doing the right thing than being worried about being burned to death by God? Maybe it points to a lack of imagination on my part, but eternal life never was a motivating force for me when I was a believer, and fear of being annihilated at the end of days still does not keep me awake at night.

It's in that context that I relate to evolution and biblical critical studies. I'm more concerned about what is true than the punishment I might suffer if my quest for knowledge takes me off the "reservation". I'm more concerned about doing the right thing (e.g. advocating for the rights of gays and lesbians to marry), than worrying about the celestial consequences.

Admittedly, this does not require heroic courage on my part since I don't believe that God--if God exists--is a heavenly executioner.

Dear Aage,

The "more important ...right thing" is being in peace with God. If you don't mind your eternity (which was bought with the blood of Christ), and your salvation, why you bother so much for some supposed scientific truths and for the artificial rights of varieties of willful sinners ?

Knowing physical truths seems to be your real God. I don't judge you, but I would ask if one can really come to know in depth scientific truths, without appreciating the TRUTH behind all other discovery.

Doing the right thing is knowing and keeping God's commandments and trusting in Jesus for the best human hope. All other right is completely wrong, because there is no other basis for ethics, than in the certainty of a loving Creator and of His good design for all of us. All other ethics (religious or humanist) needs external constraints to be preserved.

As for gays and other similar lost creatures, you do not need to be a Bible believer to know the real truth. You just ask nature, it knows best.

I don't say that you should listen to God's word inspired by terror -- though a minimal wisdom requires exactly this attitude! But the Bible says that the greatest punishment will not be the "hellfire", but to see part of the incomparable happinnes and bliss of the saved, to understand that it could have been yours too, and it is gone forever.

Please, do not take for granted that you HAVE this life and you can fill it with whatever you want. If God still loves you and there is hope in your salvation, you may face disciplinary punishments now in this life. If not, it is probably that a heavier prize is kept for later. Do not play God, man !

Dear Florin:

Thank you for your moderate and considerate reply. But you, like other creationists tell me that I have a problem, even a serious one. Who is to decide whether I have a problem or not, isn’t that myself? Why this unnecessary anxiety for me? The fact is that I really had a problem, and have gotten rid of it, and I am happy and I thank my God for that.

I do not beleive that creationists necessarily have personal problems because of their beleifs. But our dear church is facing a serious problem in the future when the ”avalanche” of scientific truth becomes irresistible, because creationists burn their bridges behind them.

You suggest that I shall contact the GRI. I have already done that, years ago. I have discussed with Jim Gibson, and he is not able to give any understandable explanation why ordinary natural science should be rejected.

If I discover that a dogma is untrue, I have to reject it, because I will be a liar if I continue to cling to it. I must have truth even if the truth shall bring me to the gates of hell, because God will never forsake me if I cling to truth.

Dawkins has succeeded in leading countless of Chirstians into his trap because he has one trait in common with fundamentalists, Christians and Muslims, he confounds faith and natural science. That is why many Christians say that he is more consistent than a Christian who accepts ordinary natural science. Atheism is also a faith. Faith cannot prove anything, only science can.

The Bible, correctly understood, tells us what to beleive, and science tells us what we shoud not beleive. It is as simple as that.

As a member of the church, I am converted to Christ, not to the chuch.

We have explained several times to you why "ordinary" natural science should be rejected, because it is based upon and interpreted within the religion of naturalism. It is not science creationists have a problem with, it is interpretation of scientifically acquired data within naturalism. You are correct, dogma is untrue. Naturalism is false religion and evolutionism is its bastard dogma.

You have been hoodwinked so that you are unable to recognize the difference between fact and interpretation. The Bible is the foundation for our science. All science is to be interpreted within it. There are certain undeniable facts, fiat creation some 6000 years ago and a global catastrophe some 4000 years ago. They are not hypotheses to be falsified (or proved) by science. Just as Naturalism and evolution are 'facts' to those who believe in them, they are not hypotheses to be (and cannot be) falsified by science.

Did you notice that it all comes down to what you choose to believe. You have chosen to believe in naturalism and evolutionism based on imaginary "evidence" which is not "evidence" but rather just naturalistic interpretation.

Science can only deal with the natural world, and cannot even consider the idea of the supernatural. Creationists don't try to use science to prove the supernatural, nor even hypothesize about it. We only deal with how nature functions after having been created. We do not try to hypothesize how God might create things. It is impossible, for it is completely outside the realm of science.

On the other hand, Evolutionists think that they are studying how things originate while they study how it functions. Darwin's "Origin of the species" is typical of this kind of silliness. Creationists make a sharp distinction between the supernatural origin of organisms and how they naturally function in the realm of science.

The Bible is our foundation of faith in God and the foundation for our scientific exploration of creation.

Christian Skeptic

Allen
Your creationist mission statement could have been written by an evolutionist:

"Science can only deal with the natural world, and cannot even consider the idea of the supernatural. Creationists don't try to use science to prove the supernatural, nor even hypothesize about it. We only deal with how nature functions after having been created. We do not try to hypothesize how God might create things. It is impossible, for it is completely outside the realm of science."

Science lacks the wherewithall to deal with the supernatural, as your "mission statement" says. Its expertise lies in dealing "with how nature functions after having been created."

If you feel that creationism should try to duplicate the efforts of natural science, you have to be willing to be judged by the same standards to which it is subject. If you compete in the 100 meter dash, you can't object to electronic timing.

Kristen
I respect your beliefs, but I simply cannot understand some of them. You speak about "our dear church" and of being "converted to Christ", not to church". I think 99 percent or more SDA will have difiiculties to understand why do you profess Adventism. Why not rather belong to any other Christian Church, especially to one of them who officially admits or tolerates evolutionism in theology? Don't tell me that it is for the Sabbath's sake. The weekly cycle is irrelevant apart of the Genesis' story.

Yes, as a creationist, I prefer to be crushed by any scientific avalanche, than accepting such contorted model (Bible plus evolutionary philosophy !) as a valid Christian theology. Yes, I am willing to burn all bridges behind me, in this "Pilgrim's progress". Why I need those bridges? What is the promising hope at the other end ?

You said that Jim Gibson was "not able to give any understandable explanation why ordinary natural science should be rejected" ? I will ask him. Anyway, I cannot accept your definitions of truth and lie. For you, science is the final authority, and you take to equate science with truth, as if science would be the very message of the nature, not a human reasoning, interpreting natural data on purely humanist premises.

You said, "I must have truth even if the truth shall bring me to the gates of hell, because God will never forsake me if I cling to truth." You may be sincere in this unfortunate enterprise, but this time you reject the eternal TRUTH and cling to some humane-proclamed "truth". Your evolutionary doctrine may not be a lie, since you do not intend to lie. But it may be even worse, that is a great deception.

Yes, atheism is a faith (plus science), evolution involves faith (not purely science), creationism is also faith and science. There is nothing without faith in this world. You say, "Faith cannot prove anything, only science can." Actually the role of faith is not to prove anything, but to affirm what is partially proved. There is no real demonstration from the part of scientific creationism or from scientific evolutionism. Both are confessions of faith, based on facts. We don't have any demonstration, we cannot experience any of them. We just observe proofs and consider arguments, then we trust one of the explanations for some psychological or philosophical reasons. Science is practiced by humans, not by robots. And science cannot prove or disprove all things. It cannot prove or disprove God and His work, without appealing to some faith.

When Bible tells me what I have to believe, and scientific community (which is not to be identified with science itself) tells me that I should not believe that, I am the right to choose the best way, and wait for better times and wiser scientists to solve such problems.

The proper way to understand the Bible is to identify what its authors have intended to say. Or one may read Genesis again and again, and there is no trace of evolutionism. Nobody has a right to interpret the Bible to reach conclusions unknown to its original authors. It is not fair.

Hi guys! I'm sorry I haven't been able to keep up with discussion, don't have internet access at home at the moment so I'm a bit limited :-)

Kirsten,

I hear your sincerity in your belief and I respect that. You say that science tells us what not to believe. Well, science deals with the observing and studying of evidence, but we can't say that science has for sure proved evolution (hence the "theory" bit). So it can't tell us for sure, that we should absolutely believe in evolution. Actually there is lack of evidence to support it. Still they want to claim that it should be considdered a known fact and that everything else is ridiculous.

However, as scientists keep studying the matter they even realize that there are more and more questions unanswered and more problems regarding the evolution theory. At the same time, the study of evidence in context of ID/Creationism shows more and more reason to believe in creation and a creator. Even Antony Flew, as Cliff Goldstein told about, who was a hardcore atheist, has changed his mind and says that one of the reasons is the strong evidence of design.

I have had almost the opposite experience of that which you describe. I grew up having to listen and learn all about Evolution all through my studies. I didn't believe in it, but didn't see any other possibility, as I didn't even have the opportunity to hear about ID and Creation theories (although raised in Adventism!). When I started studying this for myself it opened a new world for me, and I realised that I had a lot of good reasons for believing what I believed. In my conclusion I have found out that these questions and problems that evolution can't figure out, become clear and are well answered in ID/Creationism. And more and more is being answered as the study continues. That was an eye-opener for me, and that gave me indeed great peace and joy in my walk with the Lord.

As a christian, then, I can now wholeheartly believe God when he said that he created our world in 6 days (Ex.20:11). He even wrote this with his own hand, so it must be important to remember. I believe it is important for several reasons, for one, it gives me exceeded trust in God and in his words (that they are true).
Skeptisism is a big trend today for many christians. I think it can take away from our experience with God, when we succumb to that. By saying that, I don't mean that we should believe blindly. I believe we should critically study what we believe and I believe we can defenitely find very good reasons for believing what we believe.

I also think it is a great blessing to understand that God is the creator of life and beings (and not just "helping" it along while evolving). It tells me that he is in charge and that he knows every aspect of us, because he made us, and we are special in his eyes. He knows all about us and our needs. I feel Evolution degrades that thought.

Sandra

Genesis states that we were created "in his image." The entrance of sin and the subsequent story shows how that image has been distorted in mankind. Jesus then appears in human form as the "express image of God," to reveal God's image once again to and through humanity, and to restore it in our humanity. I just don't see how evolutionary thought can co-exsist with this belief.

Thanks...

Frank

Dear Florin:
I am glad that you say that you respect my beleifs. It is not the most easy thing to be in a minority in a chuch that I love. However, when I say that I love the church, you do not seem to beleive me. It is neither of any use in saying that I find reasons enough to keep the Sabbath, but you will probably not beleive me.
If I say that many texts in the Bible which SDAs traditionally interpret literally, can have alternative interpretations, you will not take me seriously, because you do not seem to be willing to discuss that at all.
When I became a Christian, I gave myself to Christ. I chose the SDA church because I felt that it had more truth than any other denomination. The main truths were, the commandments of God, forgiveness of sins through Christ, the health message, the fulfilled prophecies etc., that God is the Creator, and that the Bible is God’s true message to man. I still know that it is true, I do not know of any alternative church with these qualities, and if I shall leave the church, someone must disfellowship me.
And why should I leave the church? I have discussed the creation issue with my fellow belivers here in Norway, but nobody has recommended me to leave the church. You are the second person in America (I suppose you live in America) who does that. Do you really mean that?
It is not a problem for me that the majority in my church are creationists. A good and loving Brother in my church beleived for his whole life that the earth was flat, and that was not a problem. But it is a problem if I shall not be looked upon as a Brother i Christ, because I respect science. I disagree if somebody try to tell me that science is a kind of faith. Translated into Norwegian, Scandinavian, and German as well, it is called ”vitenskap”, German ”Wissenschaft,” because ”viten” means to ”know” in opposition to ”beleive.” To know something which is demostrated, is not the same as something we beleive without seing. I do not see God or hear his voice as I see and hear people, but I still beleive in Him. But to deny demonstrated facts is to lie. If that is not to lie, what else can it be?
The repeated attacks on ordinary science on the part of the church is unnecessary and a serious problem. That is a poor method in proclaiming the Gospel. The result is stagnation in membership, because ordinary education today in Europe has no room for creationism, and we should not expect that either. And the almost 40 % of the population i USA who are not creationists is practically impossible to win for that view. But God loves them too.
My contact with Jim Gibson was by letters only, I still have them and the articles he sent me. It was nothing in them that I did not know already.
Most SDAs and Christians in general are not much occupied by the question of the age of the earth. But all Christians beleive that God is the Creator. Natural science and creationism is a marginal interest among people in general, it is a special sort of ”hobby” only for the very few, me included.
Please forgive me for speaking so frankly and perhaps sometimes too bluntly. Let us not provoke each other, but rather try to understand each other instead.
I do not beleive that the question of how God technically created the world is cental in the plan of salvation. That is righteousness by faith, the third angel’s message i verity, according to Ellen White, God’s commandments and the faith of Jesus according to Revelation.

A thought for those skeptics out there... Can you really say that you don't have any skeptisism towards the suggestions in regards of Evolution that scientists have made in trying to read out the evidence at hand? Let me bring up the tooth story again in that context. :-) So, scientists find one tooth when digging for evidence, they feel quite confident in creating an entire Nebraska Man from this one tooth, until they find the rest of the skeleton which results in being a big pig, and not the Nebraska Man (some did wonder if the tooth came from an ape, but still, they were quite far off!).

Now, I realise that this happened a long time ago, and that hopefully scientists and the science-world has learned a lesson from that, but I do wonder thought, I do wonder what would have happened if they would NOT have found the remains of the pig? Could it be that maybe today we would be visiting the Museum of Natural History, and walking through the exhibition halls, gazing at the tooth, properly kept inside a glass-box, while reading all about the Nebraska Man on the poster behind it, looking at drawings of the Nebraska man in his natural habitat, and learning all about how he lived and what he ate?

I do wonder...

Well, I'm off to beautiful Barcelona tomorrow morning so I won't be able to pitch more in this discussion. I look forward gazing at all the beautiful architecture of Gaudi, and I will defenitely be wondering if these buildings could have evolved through millions of years?

;-)
Sandra

Dear Sandra:
Thank you for respecting me as sincere. I did not grow up in an SDA home. I learnt ordinary evoluton in the public school, and had no problem with it the day I decided to give myself to Christ and join the SDA church. When I started to read SDA literature I learned that the church taught creationism. I was 28 then and willing to learn. I have always been interested in science, history, and philospohy, and during the years I have read 20 volumes on creationism and a lot of articles. As a literture evangelist and partly a Bible worker for ca. 30 years I always tried to defend creationism, but I felt that I did not have enought knowledge. But the reading of all these books conviced me that creationsim was not the truth after all, and at least unnecessary. To discuss the age of the earth is no part of the proclamation of the Gospel.
I was told by other SDAs: Be a creationist, or an atheist, there is no other options. But during my work and dialogs with thousands of people, I understood that it is possible to be a Christian beleiver and accept ordinary science as well. I have no problem with that, but I am not happy to hear SDAs accuse people who are not creationists of not being Christians. But I belive that you do not think that way.

kristen wrote:
"But it is a problem if I shall not be looked upon as a Brother i Christ, because I respect science. I disagree if somebody try to tell me that science is a kind of faith.
"The repeated attacks on ordinary science on the part of the church is unnecessary and a serious problem. That is a poor method in proclaiming the Gospel."

No one has said that science is a kind of faith. And no one is attacking ordinary science. Creationists have great respect for science. What we are saying is that science (the scientific method) is and must be done within a world view or paradigm that is accepted by faith--be that Naturalism or Creationism. The scientific method is simply a method to study nature, but it does not and indeed cannot stand on it's own.

This idea may seem odd to people who have been taught evolutionism. And the reason why is because Naturalists and Evolutionists have intentionally been quite about it. They want people to think that science equals evolutionism and evolutionism equals science. The want people to think science stands on its own and does not need a philosophy to be done. But this is logically impossible (as I've stated elsewhere).

I can't imagine how you can think that creationists are anti-science, or that science is a faith. It is obvious to me that you do not understand what we are talking about. Perhaps you are reading what evolutionists have told you into what we are saying. Try taking the time to really read what we've said here and elsewhere.

Christian Skeptic

Kristen, I just wanted to say that, as you may have gathered from your reading here, there are some SDAs in the US who also accept varying degrees of evolutionary evidence. You are not alone in your beliefs, even over here.

I will say as well that, though I no longer consider myself an SDA, if evolution was my biggest quibble with the church, I would have had no problem staying in it. To me, the evidence is simply too obvious to deny but there are many other valid reasons for staying SDA.

I understand the complexity of the ramifications but I don't think that the ramifications are somehow a problem only to SDAs or other literalist faiths. I think the problems brought up by evolution challenge any Christian church and go to the heart of the Christian narrative. One doesn't run away from them by changing to a church that is more tolerant.

Dear Beth:
I agree with you that modern natural science (including evoution) is a great challenge to the traditional way to reading and understanding the Biblical narrative, the miracles, etc, and how to interpret the first 15 chapters of the Bible. But that should not hinder us from beleiving in God, and in fulfillment of the prophecies.
I beleive that the SDA church will undergo considerable changes of its theology in the future. That is not a question of tolerance, it has to do with realism and looking the truth stright in the eye. To join another church which do not have the specific SDA teachings because it is more lolerant, is of course nonsense.
I also understand that it is not a problem to accept evolution and still remain in the church, but if I were a pastor I probably had been fired. Des Ford lost his job only because he questioned the traditional sanctuary teaching. I suppose that most scholars in the chuch today beleive that he was right after all.
It is extremely difficult to have a meaninful dialoge with creationists. My arguments are too often answered by incantations and personal attacks.

You have presented no arguments....

and you have totally ignored ours...

I've never seen any attempt at dialog. But the issues is not about dialog, it's about what science is and is not, what it can do and what it cannot.

Science is not the ultimate source of knowledge. The Bible is the ultimate source of knowledge. Science helps us to understand the natural world, but if interpretations of data acquired by science are in conflict with the Bible, then the interpretations are wrong and one needs to examine the assumptions which are the basis for those interpretations.

Most evolutionists that I've met have never looked at the assumptions within which they function. Most don't even know that there are such assumptions. Not to mention knowing from where those assumptions come. Most evolutionists have an extremely shallow and utterly simplistic understanding of science. Which is what the devil wants.

Christian Skeptic
I'm a Christian because I'm a skeptic. I'm skeptical of religion, so, of course, I'm skeptical of naturalism.

allenroyboy:
Why should I argue about science? Im am no scholar, and certainly no scientist. I suppose that neither you are. But I beleive my Bible, that is my dearest stuff to read.
Why are you convinced that the first chaprters of the Bible should be interpreted literally? Why is it forbidden to discuss alternatives? That is an argument none of you has answered.
One day for God is like 1000 years, and 1000 years like one day (Psalm 90 and 2.Peter). Don’t you beleive that? Is that not true?
I have already mentioned that the creation stories become contradictive if you decide to read them literally. Is’nt that an argument? The sun was created the forth day after three sunsets! Why? Does that make sense? Nobody has answered this argument!
USA has about 5% of the world’s population, and have about 500.000 scholars in natural science according to Statistical Abstracts of the United States for 2003. In the rest of the world there are probably more. An overhelmingly majority of them know and beleive that the evolution theory is the most thoroughly substantiated theory ever, with millions of demonstrable proofs, and declare creationism to be outside the realm of science, becuause it is based on pure faith. Do you ignore that?
There are about 12 creation institutes which claim to be scientific in USA and as far as i know 2 i Europe, all with very few employees, and none of these institutes are recognized as scientific by the scientific world. I have already told you that our own GRI is not a scentific faculty of our own Loma Linda University in spite of the fact that it is located on the same campus. Why?
Creationists always talk about missing links in evoution. Each time a missing link has been found, many creationist argue the new missing link prove that in this case there are two missing links, and so on. Why try to argue like that? It is a false argument.
Du you not see evolution in nature with your own eyes? You who accuse me of being hoodwinked, do you not see yourself?
I challenge you to look for sound and understandable answers to these questions. But you will not find them.
I am sorry for an error in my inlogging. My correct name is
Kristen Falch Jakobsen [kristenfj@gmail.com]

Kristen wrote
"Why should I argue about science? I'm am no scholar, and certainly no scientist. I suppose that neither you are."

I am studying paleontology at a local university (as I have mentioned elsewhere) so I believe I understand something about science.

"But I believe my Bible, that is my dearest stuff to read.
Why are you convinced that the first chapters of the Bible should be interpreted literally?"

Because that is the way they are written. They are simple historical prose not mystical, mythical, hogwash.

"Why is it forbidden to discuss alternatives? That is an argument none of you has answered."

It is true that God "could have done anything else". But why not believe what He has told us He has done rather than ignore it and look for anything else to believe.

"One day for God is like 1000 years, and 1000 years like one day (Psalm 90 and 2.Peter). Don’t you believe that? Is that not true?"

The key word here is LIKE. This does not say that God uses 1000 years for a day, but rather that time for God is superfluous. He doesn't measure time by days and hours..... This is not related to the creation story in any way.

"I have already mentioned that the creation stories become contradictory if you decide to read them literally. Isn’t that an argument? The sun was created the forth day after three sunsets! Why? Does that make sense? Nobody has answered this argument!"

I wonder how you can claim to have read SDA creationary material and ask such questions. SDA's have LONG held, particularly Ellen White, that the universe was created long before the creation week here on earth. (I've talked about this elsewhere also). The Sun, moon and stars were not created ex nihilo on day 4 but rather became something special for the planet.

As for the contradictory stories, this too has been easily dealt with. The first story is what God told Adam and Eve. The second story is Adams story. Adams does not begin by discussing the events of the creation week, but goes back and explains why things came about because of man's sin. See "Creation, Catastrophe and Calvary". Try reading 'current' SDA creationary material.

"USA has about 5% of the world’s population, and have about 500.000 scholars in natural science according to Statistical Abstracts of the United States for 2003. In the rest of the world there are probably more. An overwhelmingly majority of them know and believe that the evolution theory is the most thoroughly substantiated theory ever, with millions of demonstrable proofs, and declare creationism to be outside the realm of science, because it is based on pure faith. Do you ignore that?"

Yes!!!!!!!!! Because scientific facts and truth are NOT DETERMINED BY A MAJORITY... And further, science can NEVER prove anything! The best that science can do is FALSIFY an hypothesis.

Evolution substantiated by "millions of demonstrable proof" ??!! Did you really say that???!! That is one of the BIGGEST LIES ever perpetrated on the gullible, ignorant, general public! First. They are lying about what they mean by evolution. What they are really talking about is common, ordinary genetic variation. ALL CREATIONIST accept the fact of common genetic variation. Second. They do the "bait and switch" con, which you fell for, where they claim that this common genetic variation is the evolution of all organisms from a single organisms over millions of years. THAT IS THE LIE.

Common genetic variation of organisms is simply God's design so that organism can adjust and adapt to a wide variety of climates, circumstances, and stresses brought about by sin in the world. All such change occurs within the original "kinds" that God created.

Yes. Creationism and Noah's Flood are accepted by faith. BUT SO IS NATURALISM AND EVOLUTIONISM! The difference being that Creationism is based on revelation from God who's been there, done that, while Naturalism is the ultimate in BLIND faith. It's definition--"the Cosmos is all there is, has been or ever will be" {Carl Sagan}--is pure fantasy based on nothing be imagination.

These two belief system provide the assumptions required to do science (as I've elsewhere discussed at length). All science is therefore done within a religious philosophical world view. The idea that science is done outside of a philosophical basis is ludicrous.

"There are about 12 creation institutes which claim to be scientific in USA and as far as i know 2 i Europe, all with very few employees, and none of these institutes are recognized as scientific by the scientific world."

Like, who cares if the anti-creationary community recognizes these organizations as scientific????? Their opinion is worthless. Unless you accept the religion of Naturalism and the dogma of Evolutionism, they censor you and ignore you. What matters is if Creationists actually do science. And they do.

Creation Research Society is an organization of hundreds of creationary scientists around the world who do science and often publish in the peer reviewed journal CRSQ. The Institue for Creation Research (ICR) has been an accredited graduate school for many decades with all the faculty having PhDs in various sciences doing scientific research. Answers in Genesis and their Creation Museum have many PhD scientists on their staff conducting research. They now have an on-line peer reviewed journal. All of these organizations are staffed by PhD scientists.

I can't speak for every organization that calls itself creationist.

"I have already told you that our own GRI is not a scientific faculty of our own Loma Linda University in spite of the fact that it is located on the same campus. Why?"

You did not say so in this blog. But, in any case, who are you, not being a scientist, to be able to determine what is a scientific facility? Oh, I know, you read it somewhere on some anti-creationists internet site. Like I said before, the opinion of anti-creationary evolutionists are useless and pointless. Beside, GRI is staffed by PhD scientists and it graduates MS and PhD candidates regularly.

Do the creationary scientists at GRI do science? Yes. And they publish also.

"Creationists always talk about missing links in evolution. Each time a missing link has been found, many creationist argue the new missing link prove that in this case there are two missing links, and so on. Why try to argue like that? It is a false argument."

Where have you been? There has not yet been ANY supposed missing links found. But then, if all you read is the general media, its no wonder you would think so. They lie all the time on the front pages and it is only on page 300b that they note that some claim was found to be falsified, if not even fraudulent, later on.

"Do you not see evolution in nature with your own eyes? You who accuse me of being hoodwinked, do you not see yourself?
I challenge you to look for sound and understandable answers to these questions. But you will not find them."

Your problem is that you don't even know what evolution is. What we see all around us is common ordinary genetic variation within kinds as designed by God. What we do not see is evolutionism, where all organisms are derived from a single organism over million and millions of years. Evolutionism is a religious belief within which Naturalists interpret what they see around them. Creationists look at the very same genetic variation and see nature functioning as designed by the creator God.

It all comes down to which paradigm you choose to believe. It all comes down to which religion you choose to believe. Creationism and its creator God, or Atheism's religious assertion of Naturalism and it's dogma of Evolutionism. It is one or the other. You cannot have both because they are mutually exclusive.

Creationism and Noah's floods are not hypotheses to be tested by science. Naturalism and Evolutionism are not hypotheses to be tested by science. Whenever you hear someone talk about the "theory" of evolution you can know that either they are lying to you or they are very ignorant. Evolutionism has never been a theory, but evolutionists have been trying for centuries to make us believe that it is. And they've tried to use science to proved it, despite the fact that all scientists know that science cannot prove anything. This lie is now being exposed.

Christian Skeptic

Michael wrote:

"Because that is the way they are written. They are simple historical prose not mystical, mythical, hogwash.

You may be a studentt of paleontology, but such a statement demonstrates you are not a student of literature and do not understand poetry or the term "myth" as it is used by literary analysts. Even the dictionary says:

Myth: a traditional story originating in a preliterate society, dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serve as primordial types in a primitive view of the world.

A body of such stories told among a given people; a mythology: as in Norse Myth.

All such stories collectively. For many writers, myth is the common denominator between poetry and religion.

Any appeal of fictional story, recurring theme, or character type that appeals to the consciousness of a people by embodying its cultural ideals or by giving expression to deep, commonly felt emotions. "The Oepidal myth; the myth of Horatio Alger."

All world cultures have their myths of origin, and the Hebrew stories are merely one story. The Greeks have Homer, the Iliad and Odyssey (contemporary with the written OT.) The Romans have Romulus and Remus and their rulers were called "gods, conceived miraculously. Some of the Hebrews stories are very similar to those of other cultures that are dated much earlier.

Moderns use the term "myth" as a fictional story; a non-truth. That is not the correct use as it is a literary form common to all peoples. Just as the myth of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, or throwing a dollar across the Delaware, or praying all night in the snow at Valley Forge. None of these actually happened but were told by a Parson Weems and became part of the early American myth; used to illustrate the honesty and traits of its founder.

You said: "As for the contradictory stories, this too has been easily dealt with. The first story is what God told Adam and Eve. The second story is Adams story."

This is a frail attempt at literary analyses by a novice. This is only your explanation for which you are unable to funish any substantiation. Might as well say that the writers of Genesis were two different writers that wrote at separate times. Pure conjecture.

Read: Richard Elliott Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible" or James Kugel's "How to Read the Bible" or John Gabel's book on the same subject for true literary analyses.

My apologies, Michael. The note by me should have been addressed to "Christian Skeptic."

allenroyboy:
You have repeated what I already have been reading many times in my large number of creationist volumes plus articles through the years. I cannot help that I am not able to beleive what you say. I am not trying to convert you or anybody else. It is of no use to discuss all the points you mentioned. That I am a liar together with the majority of scientists in the world is an allegation on your part and nothing else. But the attempts to tell the world that science is corrupt, and the overhelming majority of scholars in natural science are deceived and do not know their profession is detrimental to the proclamation of the Gospel. That is to a large extent the reason why the chuch, instead of increasing in membership, loses members among the educated part of the population.
The GRI is not a scientific faculty at the Loma Linda University, (you call it facility, why?) that is a written information I have from the LLU itself. I wrote that in my first response in this blog dated 09 may.
You wrote: ”SDA's have LONG held, particularly Ellen White, that the universe was created long before the creation week here on earth. (I've talked about this elsewhere also).”
I am sorry, allenroy, that is not true.
About the year 1980, when I still tried to defend creationism, I was told by a leading SDA pastor that I would be lost if i did not beleive that the Universe was created less than 10000 years ago. My conviction about this was considered heresy in my local church.
At a convention in Norway about that year, I asked Jan Paulsen in an anonymous question box if it was possible to say that the Universe and the planet might be millions or billions of years old. That was a new idea, and he took the question to the GC in USA, because he was not able to answer me.
The year after, Elder Olson from the White Estate came to Norway and told us that they had discussed the matter, and figuered out that it was possible to beleive that the planet and the Universe might be billions of years old. But do not tell me that this has been the official teaching of the church for more than about 28 years.
This shows that the official teacings of our church is changing, and I am happy for that.
More light from God will be given for the church and for mankind. The SDA church is the victim of the same diseases as all other churches, namely that tradition replaces the living intrerest on the part of the members to investigate their Bibles themselves like the Christians in Berea.

Allen wrote:
”SDA's have LONG held, particularly Ellen White, that the universe was created long before the creation week here on earth. (I've talked about this elsewhere also).”
Kristen wrote:
"I am sorry, allenroy, that is not true."

I am 58 years old and have been aware of Ellen's writing on this subject for more than 40 years. Ellen authored the "Great Controversy" in the late 1880s. In the chapter on the origin of Satan and sin she talks about the universe being full of intelligent life on other worlds before, during and after Satans fall, all of which she says took place before the creation week on this planet. In the first chapter of "Patriarchs and Prophets" {pub 1890} Ellen also talks about the fall of Lucifer in a populated universe that was older than the creation week on this planet.

The SDA Bible Commentary [first published in the 1950s] follows Ellen's lead on the old age of the universe. And it had an explanation of the Sun, moon and Stars similar to what I said above.

What I've been talking about has been a part of SDA teaching for more than 120 years! It's not something new.

I'm sure that there are SDA's who think that the universe is only 6000 to 10000 years old, but these people are likely following the teaching of non-SDA writers and are either unaware of or ignore what Ellen has had to say.

I don't believe that the SDA church has had an "OFFICIAL" position about the age of the universe and the creation week. But given what Ellen has written and what's in the Commentary I think it is clear that among those who have really sat down and studied it it is common to find them holding to an OLD Universe position. SDA's have historically been independent thinkers and they don't care if the Church has or has not had "official" positions. That is the heritage of our founding brothers and sisters.

The SDA church has intentionally steered clear of having an official creed. And I'm not sure I like the idea of our now having the "28 beliefs" of SDAs. The reason being that some will think that that puts a box around what SDAs believe and new thinking could be discouraged. The forward of the book tries to encourage believers to continue to look for "present truth" and not be limited by just these 28 concepts.

Christian Skeptic

Elaine wrote: “
“Read: Richard Elliott Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible" or James Kugel's "How to Read the Bible" or John Gabel's book on the same subject for true literary analyses.”

I was not familiar with the positions of these writers, so I check them out. I found that “Richard Elliott Friedman is a leading proponent of the Documentary Hypothesis.” And appropriately, I found Gabels book in the local library classified under the “BS” call numbers. And that is what these books are—huge piles of it!

The “Documentary Hypothesis” is the invention of a German Deistic Naturalist of the “Enlightenment” darkness. Its sole purpose was to discredit the idea that the Bible was written by men as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. After all, the god of the deists was totally uninterested in man; and would not, even if he could, communicate with man. Therefore, the Bible had to have been written by illiterate, small brained, feverish, power-mongering shaman cavemen just evolved from apes.

It has absolutely NO BASIS in actual ancient literary practices and structure. No other ancient literature is subject to such nonsense. The imaginary JPED authors and redactors are utter inanity, invented from whole cloth.

The tablet theory, which I was using, and which I did not invent, is based on the literary structure of ancient documents of the era before and during the life of Moses. The same literary structure found in ancient cuneiform narrative tablets is found repeated over and over in Genesis. Thus giving rise to the idea the Moses edited together several exiting documents written or owned by those named in the texts.

Ellen tells us that Moses wrote Genesis while he was living in Midian with his father-in-law Jethro, the Priest of Midian, after killing the Egyptian. It makes one wonder what might be found in Jethro’s grave.

The ‘Documentary Hypothesis’ is modern myth. Sorry, I’ll stick with the true history in the Bible.

Christian Skeptic

Kristen wrote:
“It is of no use to discuss all the points you mentioned.”

Too bad, perhaps you’d learn something.

“That I am a liar together with the majority of scientists in the world is an allegation on your part and nothing else. But the attempts to tell the world that science is corrupt, and the overwhelming majority of scholars in natural science are deceived and do not know their profession is detrimental to the proclamation of the Gospel.”

I am utterly astounded at your lack of logic!! You keep equating science with Evolutionism…

Most scholars of the natural sciences do their science within the religion of Naturalism and its dogma of Evolutionism. Other scholars of the natural sciences do their science within the religion of creationism. They all do science, but they get different results because they start with different assumptions derived from their religious paradigm. The problem does not lie with science, but the religious philosophy within which people choose to do and interpret their science.

Am I telling the world that science is corrupt? Egad! You’ve got to be kidding! What I am actually saying, and somehow it goes completely over your head, is that science done and interpreted within Naturalism and Evolutionism is deeply flawed because the assumptions are false. There is a huge difference between the method of science and the interpretation of science.

Kuhn has pointed out that the scholars’ paradigm guides the collecting of data seen in the natural world. It guides the development of the hypothesis. It influences the design of experimentation. It is a major factor in understanding what the experimentally acquired data means. It is utterly impossible to do science without a paradigm and that paradigm determines how one sees and understands the natural world.

Science is a logical means to study the natural world, but the natural world cannot be understood without a paradigm. Science is a method, not a paradigm.

You seem to be greatly and inappropriately impressed with “overwhelming majority!”

Why be a SDA when the ‘overwhelming majority’ of Christians worship on Sunday?
Why be a creationist when the overwhelming majority are evolutionists? It’s exactly the same flawed logic.

You accept the Sabbath because it is Biblical truth.
You accept creationism because it is Biblical truth.

You reject worshiping God on Sunday because it is a lie
You reject Evolutionism because it is a lie--this has nothing to do with science.

Christian Skeptic

perhaps I ought to clarify something.

Science can mean all the knowledge that as been acquired using the scientific method.

And

Science is the scientific method.

The second meaning is the one I use almost exclusively.

Christian Skeptic

Dear Allen:
Of course I am willing to learn.
Thank you for your clarification that the SDA church during its whole history has beleived that the Universe and our planet must be billions of years old. That is a new piece of information for me, in spite of the fact that Ellen White has written about old inhabited worlds. But I beleive that our church suffers from a kind of stagnation, not only in membership, but also in knowledge. I was severly rebuked because of my opinion in 1980, and neither a person like Jan Paulsen or any other pastor could give consent to my view. Most of the creationist literature I had gone through advocated a very young Universe, with unthinkable and silly explanations.
You and I have a different view as to what natural science is. I see no problem in accepting the ordinary definition of true natural science. Natural science and humaniora are different. Natural science shall decribe the technicalities, the physical processes, and nothing else. Humaniora like theology, literature, folklore etc. is something quite different.
The great flood happened about 4000 years ago according to Genesis. The great clay layers in the Iraq area has indeed confirmed that. This was the ”whole world” known at that time for the people and the author of Genesis. There are other passages i Scripture which describe ”all the earth” which means the Roman Empire (Rom.10:18), just to mention an example.
To beleive that the whole planet was a ”water planet” without even a dry stone 4000 years ago is totally unthinkable for me and countless other Christians, and qiute unnecessary for explaining the Genesis story.
One serious problem is that some SDAs do not look at me as a Brother because of this view. The reason is that creationism in the SDA profession of faith has become so prominent.
I am told that I cannot be an SDA if I accept ordinary evolution. I am relegated among nazis and satanists – not by all, and not by my local chuch, not here in Norway, thank God – but by SDAs in the US. That is deplorable.
I hope you understand me, at leat try to.
Kristen Falch Jakobsen

Awww... the initial thread about "Expelled" migrated to this one while I wasn't looking. What I would contribute here I posted there two weeks ago. Here I will say this:

As my arguments on the initial thread indicate, and contrary to Aage's repeated straw-man assertion, I am not an advocate of "blind faith." In fact, the debate is NOT between "reason" and "blind faith" at all, at least not in the typical direction. Science is simply not the "truth-seeking" mechanism most people think it is. I argue for the following points on the initial thread:

1) The empiricism upon which science is based is profoundly limited and leads inexorably to a radical skepticism that guts the very science that rests upon it.

2) Science's claim to "objectivity" and "reason" is entirely unsustainable, as empiricism can offer neither.

3) Objectivity and reason arise only in the context of a priori knowledge, of which empiricism can give no account.

4) Some of the most interesting and foundational phenomena in the universe (minds, information, abstract objects, etc.) are no less real because science has no means by which to study them.

5) My "faith" in the existence of a "super" natural (perhaps better called "non-natural") reality is based upon a priori synthetic knowledge and its objects, of which science can give no account.

6) Thus, my faith is not "blind" and instead is based on a form of knowledge that is (as Kant rightly noted) the only hope for "truth" to arise from science. So, any "objective" science must be based upon a priori synthetic knowledge, yet science cannot in principle account for the existence of such knowledge.

7) If there is "blind faith" in this discussion, it is on the part of the scientifically-minded (believers in the notion that empiricism is sufficient to explain all there is) that help themselves to concepts and relations (the principle of identity being just one of them) of which the scientists' underlying empiricism can give no account.

I won't reiterate my arguments from the initial thread, but the foregoing summary points are derived from them.

Now, you can endlessly debate the evidence for and against a literal Genesis account of creation, but that debate is peripheral to the real issue: science and its most strident claims should not rest on its current pedestal. Science is not "truth-gathering" in anything like the sense people believe that it is. Microwave ovens (and the science behind them) do not add one whit to the credibility of science to speculate about the distant past or even to claim that, say, quantum theory, which plays its role in the development of microwave ovens, is a true or correct theory.

People who heap credibility upon science due to its "successes," like microwave ovens, are verificationists (an entirely debunked view of science). Closet verificationists continue to prop up the pedestal of science, but Kuhn was certainly right about one thing: science itself evolves, but it doesn't evolve closer to the truth.

The debate revolves around scientific/evolutionary thinking vs. Biblical literalism. But the "scientific pressure" leading people to doubt Biblical literalism is largely a function of people's misunderstanding about what science is and what it actually can accomplish. Science produces microwave ovens, so people blindly accept that science must "know something." But that is the huge, verificationist mistake. In fact, science knows nothing. It gropes about in the darkness of pure empiricism, refusing to even acknowledge the light provided by a priori synthetic concepts, because THAT light must necessarily have non-natural origins. Thus, in its blind faith in empiricism, science continues to grope blindly.

Kristen
I noticed something in rereading the posts here. Someone has set up for you a totally false dichotomy. You mentioned it previously in the following quote;

“I disagree if somebody tries to tell me that science is a kind of faith. Translated into Norwegian, Scandinavian, and German as well, it is called ”vitenskap”, German ”Wissenschaft,” because ”viten” means to ”know” in opposition to ”believe.” To know something that is demonstrated is not the same as something we believe without seeing. I do not see God or hear his voice as I see and hear people, but I still believe in Him. But to deny demonstrated facts is to lie. If that is not to lie, what else can it be?”

‘To know’ and ‘to believe’ are NOT in opposition. This is a lie—a false dichotomy—perpetrated by Naturalists to confuse sincere people.

Almost everything we know we have learned from someone else. Not one of us has time in their life to demonstrate in a scientific matter everything that has been learned. Therefore we must turn to others and obtain knowledge from them. And therein lies the rub.

In order to accept what they say as true, we must accept that they are telling the truth. In other words we must trust in, believe in and have faith in the truthfulness of others. Therefore, everything we know by learning from others comes by believing in them. It is by believing that we can know. The one supports the other. You cannot have one without the other, i.e. there is no dichotomy!

We learn about God in the same way. We may not personally experience the presence of God, nor walk with him down dusty lanes in Israel, as did the disciples. Nearly everything we come to know about God we learn from someone else (such as the writers of the Bible). And if we accept what they have to say as truth, then we are demonstrating trust, faith and belief in them as being truth tellers and not liars. And we become believers in God because of our knowledge of Him acquired through our faith in the truthfulness of others.

I have never seen you, Kristen. I have never seen Stephen J. Gould. I have never seen Niche. But I know and believe that you exist (and Gould and Niche existed) because I have read your, and their, words. And I also know by belief in the truthfulness of others that testify about the existence of all of you.

It is exactly the same with God. Even though I have never seen God, I know he exists because of His words, and by believing in the truthful testimony of others I have faith in.

In other words, my knowledge of God comes by having faith in and believing in what truthful people have said. This is NOT BLIND FAITH, as Naturalists would have you think. This is not belief vs. knowledge. This is knowledge bringing on belief in God BECAUSE of belief in truthfulness of people.

Belief is always belief, trust, and faith in someone. It is never an abstract.

Christian Skeptic

Richard:
I think that I might change your above concluding paragraph to:

"The debate revolves around naturalistic/evolutionary thinking vs. Biblical literalism. But the "Naturalistic pressure" leading people to doubt Biblical literalism is largely a function of people's misunderstanding about what science is and what it actually can accomplish. Science produces microwave ovens, so people blindly accept that science must "know something." But that is the huge, verificationist mistake. In fact, the scientific method knows nothing. It gropes about in the darkness of pure empiricism. Naturalists refuse to even acknowledge the light provided by a priori synthetic concepts, because THAT light must necessarily have non-natural origins. Thus, in its blind faith in empiricism, Naturalism continues to grope blindly."

I agree that the "scientific method" does not "know" anything. It is just a methodology. What people know is determined by the paradigm which they choose to accept.

Christian Skeptic

Allen, I agree with your modification of my paragraph. The empirical/naturalistic paradigm is the basis of scientism (and thus mainstream science as it is generally practiced). I take your point that not all scientists are necessarily philosophical naturalists. But mainstream science is committed to philosophical empiricism/naturalism, and that commitment keeps such science groping in the dark. That was what I was trying to encapsulate in apparently too few words. Thanks for keeping things sharp.

“I disagree if somebody tries to tell me that science is a kind of faith. Translated into Norwegian, Scandinavian, and German as well, it is called ”vitenskap”, German ”Wissenschaft,” because ”viten” means to ”know” in opposition to ”believe.” To know something that is demonstrated is not the same as something we believe without seeing. I do not see God or hear his voice as I see and hear people, but I still believe in Him. But to deny demonstrated facts is to lie. If that is not to lie, what else can it be?”
Your assertion: ”To know’ and ‘to believe’ are NOT in opposition. This is a lie—a false dichotomy—perpetrated by Naturalists to confuse sincere people.”

Your explanation may seem philosophically interesting, but it is a theoretical sophism with no practical relevance. Ordinay people know the difference between knowing a demostrated fact and beleiving something which is not seen, proved or demostrated.
In natural and forensc science it is vital to have thoroughly substantiated facts, and conclusions obtained beyond reasonable doubt.

Kristen Falch Jakobsen [kristenfj@gmail.com]

Kristen, my points in the initial thread are certainly not "theoretical sophisms," despite your unfounded assertions. You are correct that there is a difference between "demonstrated facts" and "something which is not seen, proved or demonstrated." About that there is NO debate. Where there IS debate is about WHICH of science's many and strident claims are "demonstrated facts." But my "theoretical sophisms" (falsely so called) are actually addressing an even more fundamental issue, an issue that underlies even the debate about what are the "demonstrated facts" in science.

Scientists committed to philosophical empiricism/naturalism (most of them, and, methodologically, all of them) assert, as did Gavin repeatedly in the initial thread, that empiricism/naturalism is sufficient to account for all observed phenomena. It is not, as I (I think) pretty conclusively demonstrated with my so-called "theoretical sophisms" of the initial thread.

The actually demonstrated fact that empiricism is NOT adequate as an in-toto world view has profound implications for the role and application of science in our society and in our belief systems.

Here is a parallel that will be quite pressing. We recognize the principle of adaptation, and we acknowledge that it helps species survive relatively small changes in their environments. However, I deny, along with other creationists, that adaptation is an adequate principle to account for speciation itself. The overarching mistake is that evolutionists take a functioning principle and tries to make a sweeping, universal "law" out of it. In a parallel way, scientists take empiricism, which is a very useful PART of our world view regarding everyday in-our-face events, and then they try to make a sweeping, universal paradigm out of it. In the same way that adaptation is not an adequate account of (supposed) speciation events, empiricism cannot provide an adequate account of all the phenomena of the universe. In both cases scientists take something with limited applicability and try to make it have universal application.

This is no "theoretical sophism," my friend. The fundamental inadequacies of empiricism are widely known in the intellectual community. I merely point out that the inadequacies have vast implications for the strident claims of science regarding ancient historical events and in-principle unobservables.

I am sorry for the problems with the church you have expressed. Although, I must say that it seems naive to me that you would be disconcerted by these. After all, among all denominations, the SDA church holds most firmly to a literal Genesis reading. This is not surprising, given the SDA interpretation of the Ten Commandments, particularly the fourth, which is read most strongly in the context of a literal six-day creation week. So, it should be no surprise to you that your evolutionary views would be condemned pretty heartily by the church.

Furthermore, you are certainly not "shy" about publicly stating your views. After all, in your one response to me, you in effect called my points "lies" and accused me of engaging in "sophisms," which are both pretty provocative claims to make! If you deal with other church members this way, the rejection you have experienced could be viewed as legitimate, rather than "wrong" as you call it. Do you think the church should applaud views that are diametrically opposed to its core teachings??? I do wonder why you affiliate yourself with a denomination that is so opposed to you regarding such a fundamental issue. Even if you think that the Sabbath matters, there are dozens of Sabbath-keeping denominations that are not as "literalist" in their reading of Genesis. Rather than complain about the problems you experience in this denomination, perhaps you should consider finding one that more suits your particular world view. Not every denomination is for everybody.

I'll sum up by urging you, as I did others in the initial thread, before you pop off with more unsubstantiated claims about how adequate and wonderful scientism is, take the time to read and understand empiricism through Hume's eyes. THEN tell me where you get the empirical basis for causality, identity, mathematical and logical relations, and so on. Empiricism is fine in its limited context, once you already have all that foundational stuff in place; but empiricism gives you NO account for how you got all that foundational stuff in the first place, nor will it ever.

Oh, one other point. Your "ordinary people" line is really, really weak. For one thing, it is the "ordinary people" in the United States with which scientists are having the most trouble. Despite scientists totally having their way with generations of science classrooms through the college years, more than 80% of people in this country continue to believe that evolutionary theory is not an adequate account of origins (I cite polls to this effect in my book). So, apparently, "ordinary people" in this country are UNABLE to recognize the very distinction you mentioned between "demonstrated facts" and claims that are "not seen, proved or demonstrated." Somehow, surprise, surprise, the "ignorant, stupid, or wicked" (to quote Dawkins) people of this great nation don't think that evolutionary theory constitutes "demonstrated facts." How DARE they???

For another thing, the "ordinary people" to whom you refer can't seem to get the facts straight regarding a whole array of "commonsense" issues, ranging from their inconsistent descriptions of an accident scene to their inability to even understand their own spouses! I haven't developed this issue yet, but, trust me, you throw yourself willfully into a horrible quagmire when you appeal to "ordinary" or "commonsense" understandings of the "facts," and you've got a hard row to hoe if you want to demonstrate that the scientific method is generally more reliable than that!

But, let's start by getting clear about empiricism, since that's the real foundation of the debate. Every other aspect of the debate hangs on the results of that one.

What is this empiricism that you talk about, Richard. I am not familiar with this concept. It sounds like a philosophy rather than a scientific method.

Richard and Allen:
I only made a general statement about faith and ”wissen” (knowing). I have not auccused you of lying. That word is yours. I beleive that you are as sincere as I am, but I still have the right to disagree with you, because my experience is not like yours.
Forgive me for calling your statement a sophism. But it looked to me like an evasion of an undisputed fact.
You admit that it is no debate about what I say about faith and demostrated facts. Still you call my statement a lie. Since I have no academic education, I am not able to continue any in-depht philosphic debate about the issue.
Since you talk about ”adaptaton and speciation” I beleive that you must be a scholar in biology? I am not.
I do not understand why ordinary science should be considered spurious. The results of modern science speak for itself. We all enjoy the fruits of it – in technology, medicine, geology, biology, anatomy, chemistry, etc. etc. The SDA church applies modern science actively. I am not able to slice out a particular segment of it and deem it to be false.
Please, at least try to undestand me. I am not fighting against the church. I am active in my own church here in Norway. I have always supported it and given my life to it. And I have understood that the Spectrum blogs are forums for discussion of theological and philosphic questions, and what is wrong with making use of this opportunity?
Why should I leave the church where I have my friends, where I have been working for more than 40 years, and join another denomination, with another view of the prophecies, the health message, the ten commandments, where they teach the immortaliy of the soul and many other superstitions, etc. etc? Do I deserve that? Do you really beleive that all SDAs in good and regular standing argee with you on all point of faith only because they never discuss it with you?
Sometimes the attitude of some SDAs against fellow beleivers with some divergent views shocks me. Is there something wrong with my church here at home because it has never called me a liar, hoodwinked, or relegated me among nazis and satanists? But Americans have done that. Do I really deserve such condemnation? Does that have something to do with culture? You do not need to answer me, consider it for yourself.
If the discussion is to be continued at this level, it is better to stop it.
Kristen Falch Jakobsen [kristenfj@gmail.com]

Kristen, you have misunderstood the intent of my comments and questions. I am sorry for that. It is partly the nature of forums such as these that such misunderstandings can arise. My intent was not to make you feel attacked. My questions about your involvement with the church were sincere, and I appreciate your answers to them. Now I better understand your motivations and the nature of your involvement with the church. I don't see where I called you a liar or even suggested that, but, again, misunderstandings can arise in such forums.

Certainly I am not suggesting that you cannot disagree, particularly in a forum of this sort. I don't know the context in which you have been equated to a Nazi or Satanist, so I can't respond to that. My primary point in that section of my response was that you should not be shocked or dismayed by individuals rejecting your "divergent view" with extreme prejudice. You are diverging on one of the central points of SDA faith. Perhaps some are overreacting. Again, I don't know the context, so I don't know. I guess I'm less shocked than you only because I have personally endured an amazing amount of garbage from this denomination, and that over far less contentious issues than Biblical literalism regarding the creation week. I guess I'm just used to people reacting strongly about things, although I agree with you that often attitudes are inappropriate.

Now, to the debate....

Carlitas asked a relevant question, and, given what you said above, it seems that you will benefit from the same explanation: What is empiricism?

In a nutshell, empiricism is a mode of knowledge-gathering. Empirical knowledge is that gained from sensory experience (where the senses include "inner sense," like the sense of the passage of time, self-awareness, etc.). "Empiricism" is a philosophical label, but, as you can already see, that form of gathering knowledge is not a "philosophical" form. Empirical knowledge IS the knowledge of science, because science is in the business (indeed, solely in the business) of gathering and explaining OBSERVABLE facts (what I have elsewhere called "phenomena"). In fact, science is so committed to empiricism as its SOLE mode of knowledge-gathering that empiricism has come to be EQUATED with knowledge-gathering, as though there ARE no other means. But this radical narrowness is both science's strength (when science is employed to produce microwave ovens and so forth) and its weakness (when science is employed to tell us about the "ultimate truths" of the universe).

Kristen, you have fallen into the very world-view I earlier warned about: you see working microwave ovens and so forth, and you assume that these VERIFY the truth of the scientific theories that underlie these products. I could give you a lengthy account of why such a "verificationism" is unsustainable, but I gather that you don't want to be bombarded with that sort of depth. Instead, let me give you a simple example.

Using Newton's cosmology, we could have accurately sent men to the moon, launched and retrieved space shuttles, send out space probes, and all the many other things we do in space. In short, Newton's theories were entirely sufficient to DO and PRODUCE the space-related technologies we have. However, now we "know" that Newton's theories were WRONG. Not just a little bit... they were entirely misguided and wrong-headed. Einstein completely overturned Newton. Would space travel have verified that Newton was correct? Well, on your view it would have. You would have said, "Look we can get a man to the moon using Newton's theories. How much more proof do you need? Newton's theories predict that an object will be in such and such a place at such and such a time, and sure enough! The object is there! We can send a man to the MOON using Newton! Of course he is correct!"

But you would have been wrong to think that.

Now, thanks to Einstein, we have nuclear power (and weapons), oh, AND we can still do all the cool stuff we could have done with Newton's theories. So, now we "know" that Einstein's theories are "correct." The universe REALLY is a four-dimensional space-time continuum. Right?

Just one big problem. Einstein's theories don't play well with quantum mechanics. In fact, the two are inconsistent. BUT, we "know" that our quantum theories are "correct" because we use them to get cool things like computers and microwave ovens. So, is Einstein wrong like Newton was? Or is quantum theory wrong? But we DO have microwave ovens... so doesn't that PROVE that quantum theory is correct?

Well....

Modern physicists are currently committed to both Einstein and to quantum theory, so they are devising various methods for combining both theories... so far without success. Perhaps Einstein will give way to some other cosmology that fits better with quantum theory, or perhaps quantum theory will have to give way. Perhaps some combination of the two will work, although at present it's looking like combining both theories will require positing that the universe is (at least) ten-dimensional.

Let's say that physicists do succeed in resolving the contradictions between Einstein and quantum theory. Let's say it takes ten dimensions to do it. Now we'll have space travel, nuclear power, AND microwave ovens; and all of these will be "based" upon this new ultimate theory. So, THAT will prove that the new theory is correct? That will prove that the universe really does have ten dimensions?

Of course not! ALL we will "know" at that moment is that this new theory "accurately" describes the way the universe SEEMS to us at that time-slice. We have no more idea of what future theories will look like than Newton did! Newton thought he nailed it. Einstein thought he nailed it, and he flatly rejected quantum theory for many reasons. One hundred years from now, people will look back at how quaint Einstein was. These theories are NOT telling us the TRUTH about the way the universe REALLY is. Scientific theories can never do that, just by their nature.

The history of physics (even more so, science in general) demonstrates that science moves from theory to theory in entirely predictable fashion (as Kuhn wrote), and that NONE of the theories accepted at any given moment have any more justification to be called "true" than the earlier ones they displaced. The problem with looking, as you do, at the PRODUCTS of science in any given time-slice is that ALL scientific theories produce cool stuff, even the "wrong" ones! In fact, THAT is what science is really good for! THAT is its strength: telling us how things appear to work (at the moment, to us) so that we can produce cool stuff.

But more and more "advanced" technology DOES NOT indicate that the underlying theories are TRUE! I know these seems very counterintuitive if you have never heard this before, but it is common knowledge in the more educated community. I don't say that in disrespect. I am only saying that when you refer to "ordinary people" (I take it, including yourself), you are referring to people who don't understand what science really is, what science's limitations really are, and the history of science with the implications from that history. All I can tell you is this. I know that verificationism is appealing and "common sense." But it is also wrong. It is unsustainable to derive from the products of a theory that that theory is correct. Don't take my word for it. Look up "verificationism" online. You can check out the work of Carnap, the most famous of the verificationists. Also check out "logical positivism" and the "Vienna Circle." Spend some time researching empiricism, and recognize how science rests solely and completely upon this form of knowledge.

If you do this, you will come to a different view of the credibility of science than you now have. My friend, honestly, at present you have much more blind faith in science than many people have in God. I know you would say your faith is not blind but is based upon "evidence." But I've tried to explain that the "evidence" you have does not support what you think it does. Perhaps the "evidence" theists have does not support their faith either; in fact, for many if not most I believe that to be the case. However, nobody can bash theists for "blind faith" if they are suffering from a bad case of it themselves. Before you can rest comfortably in your own faith, you should have studied enough to know that microwave ovens provide no good evidence for faith in science either! Then you can learn about the limitations of empiricism, and you will see that science can ONLY talk about phenomena that are in principle observable. Yet the most interesting phenomena are not "observable" in the scientific sense at all. So, science cannot provide an accurate account of what we observe, much less a general account of all there is.

Kristen
The advantage of higher education, the lack of which you deplore, is that it makes people very good at justifying their conclusions, whether those conclusions are right or not. (Langdon Gilkie wrote a fabulous book devoted to that one theme, called 'Shantung Compound"). On this issue, you're right and they're wrong when it comes to the essential issue: Is modern science a conspiracy against the factual truth?

It is, of course, preposterous to believe, as you have argued, that hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world are trying their darndest to suppress the truth. When the medieval church forced Galileo to suppress a truth that went against tradition, they thought they were doing truth a service. In the long term the Galileo incident came back to haunt the church, and it paid an enormous price in terms of credibility and respect for truth.

In the United States more than half the population believes in some form of anti-evolutionary creationism, and Christians who speak in favor of evolution over here are about as popular as those who preach in favor of joining the European Union are in the North of Norway, where I believe you're from. I remember you well from the time when I was a young and arrogant editor at the Publishing House in Oslo and you were the Union colporter leader, I believe. You were one of these "straight arrows", who believed strongly in the Adventist message and who did what you could to share it with the people of Norway. Coming from that background, I'm incredibly impressed at your courage and also your foresight.

Stå på!

Kristen:
No one has called you a liar. No one has called you a Nazi. You are apparently reading this into what has been said. Perhaps this is because English is a second language.

What we have been talking about are the lies that have been perpetrated on the general public that many, including yourself, have accepted uncritically as fact. This is because you have not been taught the fairly easy skills it takes to recognize bogus science when you see it. This is not your fault, and you are not to blame, it was planned that way by the Naturalistic educational system we all are educated by. But you should and can easily learn to be critical of everything you have ever been taught! Including about Christianity in general.

The problem is that the definition of "ordinary science" you have been taught is way too shallow and way too general. It does not take into account the massive differences between operation science and historical science.

You say above, "But to deny demonstrated facts is to lie. If that is not to lie, what else can it be?” The only possible 'demonstrated facts' are those that come from the "Operational Sciences". These are repeatable and observable.

On the other hand, Historical Sciences--geology, anthropology, paleontology--are NOT repeatable and observable. The Historical sciences are NOT demonstrated facts, they are extrapolation and interpretation of data into the past according to a world view. Historical sciences take what we can see now and apply to the past whether or not it is valid to do so. It is not a lie to reject interpretation of the past in a particular world view, when that interpretation conflicts with the historical facts of the Bible.

On purpose You have been taught to not know that most of the scientific knowledge we are surrounded by is interpreted within the world view of Naturalism.

When it comes to operational sciences--chemistry, physics, etc., the choice of world view is of very little importance. This is because both world views--Creationism and Naturalism--have nearly identical assumptions about the present.

But when it comes to historical sciences, which do NOT quality as "ordinary science" (demonstratable science), one's world view becomes supremely important. One can indeed 'slice out' a part of scientific knowledge--the historical sciences--when they conflict with the Bible.

So long as you indiscriminately lump everything even remotely "called" science into one bucket, you will never understand what we are talking about.

And I disagree with you about every one knowing the difference between knowledge and belief. Most people, including you do not seem to know the difference. Most all the knowledge we each have (scientific or non-scientific) was taught to us by people we trust. If we did not trust and believe them we would reject all the "knowledge" they might try to give us. Knowledge comes by belief in our teachers.

If you believe God by blind faith, you are in a very sorry, illogical position. Faith in God is NEVER EVER blind. It is ALWAYS based upon witness or experiential evidence (not scientific evidence by way of the scientific method). When it comes to sin and salvation God says, "come, let us REASON together, though your sins are as scarlet they will be white as snow." He does not say, "Believe, Believe, shut up, close your mind, just Believe ... I will save you" The Bible is a large, logical testimony providing evidence to believe in God. Thus, knowledge of God comes by believing what others have told us. And with that knowledge of God comes belief in Him. Therefore, our belief in God is not blind, but based on evidence we accept as true because we believe those who told us.

Belief does not depend upon having SEEN God with our EYES. (That was doubting Thomas's big problem.)

I believe you exist and I've never seen you either. The same evidence I have for believing that you exist I have for believing in God.

This is not sophistry, this is common, ordinary, simple logic.

As I said before, being a SDA is much more than the 7th day Sabbath. SDA's are by definition creationists. I don't care how sincere someone may be about all the other doctrines of the SDA church. I don't care how much you love your church and being a part of it. Why would anyone even want to be a SDA knowing that SDAs are Creationists while believing in the religion of Naturalism and Evolutionism? (This is addressed to many others on this blog too).

Jesus said, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth."

On the other hand, why would a SDA want to be anything other than a creationists? The scientific method certainly doesn't demand it.

Christian Skeptic

Yup, Aage, as usual, right on. Another thing that's preposterous to believe is that anyone would intentionally misread and misunderstand another person just so that they would not have to face up to the radical failings of their own viewpoint. How much higher education does it take to do that? I think none at all, but you tell me.

It's also preposterous to believe that anybody today would utterly conflate the Catholic church and theism. I guess it's possible in principle that somebody might do something preposterous like that, but it's hard to imagine anybody with even the tiniest bit of higher education resorting to such a tactic. That sort of thing would be simply TOO preposterous, and I know you agree.

Finally, it's also preposterous to believe that anybody would think that the history of science is free from all intellectual repression, intentionally falsified data and conclusions, and gratuitous misleading of the public in order to gain and then squander public funds. Again, it's hard to imagine anybody with even the tiniest bit of higher education believing such a preposterous thing.

I'm glad we're totally on the same page about the preposterous nature of some people's beliefs. I'm also so happy that nobody on this thread has any such preposterous beliefs! Whew!

I do disagree, however, with your idea that it's higher education that makes people effective at making their wrong conclusions seem right (at least to themselves). The human condition itself is what enables this marvelous feat. Less educated people call conclusions they disagree with: "sophisms," "posturing," and "hand waving;" and they disparage even the thought of learning enough to explain exactly what is wrong (if anything) with those conclusions. Those same uneducated people call conclusions they agree with: "obvious," "common sense," and "preposterous to disagree with." Oh, wait. That happens regardless of educational background. Like I said... the human condition.

Allen... WELL said!

After this I'm done for the night. There's a great "Calvin and Hobbes" that I can pretty closely paraphrase. It's applicable to this discussion.

Calvin says to Hobbes: "I hate school! The more I learn the more complicated life is. Where things were clear and I KNEW, things become subtle and difficult."

Hobbes replies: "Well, why's that bad?"

Calvin snorts: "I'm a man of action, and education makes it difficult to act with confidence."

Hobbes chuckles: "You're ignorant, but at least you act on it."

Allen:
I was on my way to give up. But – I will try again…
None of you have called me a Nazi or a Satanist. That was done by a probably more prominent person than you in the SDA church in USA. I have his written statement. If we can discuss in a civilized way I may be able to forget it.
Historical and paleontoligical facts may not be proved 100% - but beyond any reasonable doubt. Very much of what we know or believe is not absolutely 100% demonstrated, but we find it reasonable to accept it. The reason for that is 1) our own experiences in life, 2) other reliable persons experiences in life, and 3) the professonality of experts. If you need a surgical operation, you rely on your doctor’s professionality, regardless of his religious faith or even if he is an atheist. And in most cases success is achieved.
Science today is extremely specialized. But when a biologist tries to ”disprove” something in the realm of geology ”because it does not fit in with the Bible,” I do not beleive him. When a medical doctor tries to disprove something i paleontolgy, I can not beleive him, because this is not his profession. It is of no help that he is an academic, he does not know anything more of what he is talking about than a layperson. But this happens again and again by the videos and DVDs which circulate withing the SDA church and other churches with similar views.
For me it is not important whether the world is 6000 or 6 billion years old. I beleive that God is the Creator, and he is still occupied by creating, he created you and me.
The fundamentalistic theory of creation which necessitates a literal reading of the first 15 chapters of the Bible has a hard time today, and therfore we are not able to win people with modern education. In the book ”Seventh-day Adventists Beleive” it seems to be one of the conditions required in order to become an SDA, that one must beleive that the creation week is literal history and therefore opposed to the modern natural science which is advocated by more than 90% of the scientific community.
Why have creationism become so prominent in our church? I beleive that it is something which has evolved especially since the establishment of the GRI in 1957. The issue did not have that prominence before.
I have in my hands a KJ Bible with an inclusion of H.M.S.Richard’s Special Bible Subject Helps - not with 27 or 28 Bible subjects, no - but with 480 - and not one single of these subjects contain any attack on natural science or on evolution as far as I can see! And Elder Richard was a soul winner.
You say that I lump everything called science into one bucket, and that is the reason why I never will understand what we are talking about. I wrote in my blog of May 27: ”Natural science and humaniora are different. Natural science shall decribe the technicalities, the physical processes, and nothing else. Humaniora like theology, literature, folklore etc. is something quite different.” Do you not agree with me?
Richard Jensen:
Your long explanation concerning empirical knowledge and history of physics contains nothing I do not agree with as far as I can see.
But I beleive that our attempt to proclaim the good news of the Gospel will have poor success if we try to do it by more or less complicates logical reasonings. Why not skip the whole business of creationism, and rely on people’s sincerity when they profess their faith and bear fruit for the Kingdom, keep God’s commandments, and have peace in their souls?
Til slutt: Takk skal du ha, Åge! Du hjalp meg i gang igjen!

Kristen Falch Jakobsen [kristenfj@gmail.com]

The "Good News of the Gospel" should be fairly simple, and it is. But many other truths of Scripture are not quite so simple. Furthermore, it is often the case that truth is complicated, the more so as you begin to get into scientific and philosophical theories. Here we are discussing a complicated subject, so it is not appropriate to expect it to be argued as simply as one might share the Gospel. Also, clearly there are things you do disagree with in my account of science and empiricism. Either that or you do not understand my account. You would not continue to argue as you do if you both understood and agreed.