General Category > General Discussions
Evolution at La Sierra?
Bob Pickle:
Lastly, from http://www.frcforum.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=33 I read, "Lee F. Greer, III, is currently completing a PhD in molecular, developmental and evolutionary Biology at Loma Linda University."
This is all particularly strange to me since when I was at the La Sierra University Church in 1998, Ron Carter was on the platform. Ron was a pastor who went back and got a biology degree. He taught classes on creation and evolution as well as in biology in the 1980's at Southern. He opposed evolutionary theory. I assume that when he was on staff teaching (presumably) biology at La Sierra he still opposed it. If that assumption is correct, then La Sierra's biology department may have undergone a drastic paradigm shift in recent years.
By the way, if we refer to creationist scientists as creationist scientists, then we should also refer to evolutionary scientists as evolutionary scientists. Some evolutionists would like to pretend that a creationist cannot be a scientist, and using terminology that makes an evolutionist a particular type of scientist helps to dispel that bogus propaganda.
Artiste:
--- Quote from: Bob Pickle on May 14, 2009, 06:05:37 AM ---If you want to read more of the comments of Cliff and other creation believers, as well as the comments of former and/or pseudo Adventists pushing evolution, just go to the above link and read the comments.
--- End quote ---
Would you call the current publisher/editor of the Pacific Union Recorder, the official SDA church paper for the Pacific Union, a former and/or pseudo Adventist? (He was definitely pushing evolution.)
Bob Pickle:
Perhaps that was a poor choice of wording on my part.
But it does raise the question, at what point is an Adventist not an Adventist? If an Adventist claims to be an atheist, are they still an Adventist?
It is a serious thing to deny what the Bible, Genesis, and the 4th commandment clearly and unequivocally teach regarding God creating the world in 6 days.
"Infidelity prevails to an alarming extent, not in the world merely, but in the church. Many have come to deny doctrines which are the very pillars of the Christian faith. The great facts of creation as presented by the inspired writers, the fall of man, the atonement, and the perpetuity of the law of God, are practically rejected, either wholly or in part, by a large share of the professedly Christian world" (GC 582-583).
sonshineonme:
--- Quote from: Bob Pickle on May 14, 2009, 05:42:40 PM ---Perhaps that was a poor choice of wording on my part.
But it does raise the question, at what point is an Adventist not an Adventist? If an Adventist claims to be an atheist, are they still an Adventist?
It is a serious thing to deny what the Bible, Genesis, and the 4th commandment clearly and unequivocally teach regarding God creating the world in 6 days.
"Infidelity prevails to an alarming extent, not in the world merely, but in the church. Many have come to deny doctrines which are the very pillars of the Christian faith. The great facts of creation as presented by the inspired writers, the fall of man, the atonement, and the perpetuity of the law of God, are practically rejected, either wholly or in part, by a large share of the professedly Christian world" (GC 582-583).
--- End quote ---
I am starting to read some about this (in the links provided) but haven't gotten far enough yet...so I am going to ask this here - and it will sound much like my question before (in a reply to Artiste but not just for her to answer). Are they teaching the type of evolution that removes creation by God? I realize this may be a subject tied to many other subjects which might have different views or takes on what this or that means, but, simply, has creation by God been abandoned in these teachings or are they talking about the evolution (all is not bad) that has taken place. i.e. we were once 15 ft tall and lived 900 + years, we don't now for many actual reasons besides just saying "sin". So, as I need to do my own research, I would love it if some of the differences were simply stated? Maybe one of the links above will answer my question and I just haven't gotten to it yet...
Bob Pickle:
I think you've asked a good question. Teaching from an evolutionary approach a biology class doesn't refer to "micro-evolution." It refers to run-of-the-mill evolution.
Consider this from the link at the top of this thread, http://www.atoday.com/fundamentalist-creationist-gets-lukewarm-student-reception-la-sierra-university:
--- Quote from: Erv Taylor in AToday ---As an institution functioning within the Christian tradition, as expected, most students approach their understanding of the contemporary world from a theistic perspective and thus hold the view that God is responsible for the ultimate origin of the natural world. In this sense, all Christians are "creationists" and thus, also in this sense, it would be expected that Adventist Christians would adhere to that view as well.
In popular contemporary discussions, the word "creationism" has acquired a connotation that has severely narrowed its meaning to describe a belief that the world and/or all of its life forms were created in the relatively recent past (less than 6000-10,000 years) in seven literal, 24-hour days and that there has been a even more recently, a world-wide Flood. This more restrictive understanding of creationism has been adopted by some fundamentalist-oriented Protestant denominations and the fundamentalist wings of others.
--- End quote ---
Think about what he is saying above. He's saying that all Christians are creationists, even if they believe in evolution over millions of years.
He's also saying that belief in a 6-literal-day creation 6000 years ago is an extreme view. That's radical. It's heresy. It's unbiblical. And Ellen White called it "disguised infidelity."
Those are quotes from an article reporting alleged negative reaction to Sean Pitman's presentations at La Sierra. Yet Sean believes and teaches that the earth has been here maybe millions of years, and that life was created here 6000 years ago. I think he also teaches that the sun was here before Day 4. I don't see how any Adventist can liken Sean's positions to something ultra-conservative.
Incidentally, I do believe that the sun and moon were created on Day 4, and that the heavens, earth, sea, and all that in them is were created during a literal six days.
Someone pointed out to me that the same theories by which the Precambrian (layers below fossil layers) is dated is used to date the various fossil-bearing strata. Perhaps part of our problem today with evolution is that some of us accepted the idea that maybe the Precambrian layers are billions of years old, and that opened the door to using the same methods of dating on fossil bearing strata.
I don't share that to criticize Sean. I'm just pointing out how extreme the problem is when a creationist who allows for an ancient earth and parts of Gen. 1 to not mean what they say gets bashed by the executive publisher of a journal that uses the trademark "Adventist" in its name, bashed for upholding a creation of life on this planet 6000 years ago, bashed for believing in Noah's Flood.
And now next week AToday will feature contrary book reviews by Cliff Goldstein and Erv Taylor regarding a book on dinosaurs by an Adventist creationist attorney named Read. The reviews were announced as going to be contrary. In what way? It will be interesting to see. Methodology the author used? Or conclusions the author arrived at?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version