I have not gotten that feeling from the Geoscience Research Institute. Nor have I gotten that feeling from our television ministries when they handle the issue.

I agree that members of the church that do not have a science background are more likely to form anti-scientific attitudes due to some of science's conclusions being so contrary to the Bible. That is another reason why Philosphoy of Science classes should be part of our educational system so that students of Religion and Science can have a mutual respect for each other and understand each other's prespective better.



I see some of that in some of the programs I see on Christian TV but these are not Adventist programs. However, in my experience, many science professors are anti-religious and will openly redicule religious students. I was told by one that I needed to take more of his classes to deprogram me from what religion had taught me. I have heard many simular stories from other Christians too.

I think with our moderate approach to the subject, Adventists could do a better job with creation evangelism than other denominations are doing.

The geologist who commented on the white cliffs, Dr. Elaine Kennedy, made observations and reached conclusions about the very issues you have raised again here. You could refer to her statements on the earlier thread or, if you still have her email address, contact her directly, scientist to scientist.

Dr. Elaine Kennedy has offered a plausable explanation for the cliffs. Another member here attacted her explanation so much that she requested an apology.



The types of attacks and bullying behavior which resulted in offending this esteemed church member have continued to the point where we cannot even discuss the Sabbath without being attacted and insulted for believing in the Biblical record of creation. These attacts are not even coming from someone who works in geology or holds a Ph.D in science.

I have no problem discussing differences of opinions but when other members start throwing around judgments like saying ordained ministers and evangelists are lying to our children, that goes a bit beyond the healthy exchange of ideas.

Just two comments on the White Cliffs controversy, then I'll leave it alone:

1. The comments that upset Dr Kennedy were not directed at her personally (i.e. not sent to her), but were made as part of a discussion in this forum. They were forwarded to her by David Koot, which to me is a breach of netiquette, but opinions differ on that issue. There was no attack on her or her motivations... bevin simply speculated that there might be reasons why some explanations were more attractive to her than others. She assured us that his speculations were mistaken, and I believe bevin accepted that assurance.

2. If I recall correctly she did not really give a final, definitive response to the question, or give any real detailed discussion of the issue at all. That's fair enough, because it was not an argument that she had chosen to participate in, and she was kind of dragged in against her will. But it did mean there was never any real opportunity to debate the ideas she was presenting, as occurs in science. As it happened, we were presented with her brief conclusion and had the choice between supinely accepting it or being perceived as attacking an elderly lady in poor health.

I said there are otehr issues, and it seems to me that discussion of this issue has been irretrievably muddied by the sequence of events described above. Let's leave it alone. (But if you have a rejoinder to these points, of course you have every right to make it.)

You are too kind. Others read the comments quite to tne contrary.

When I was 18 years old I was not forming the opinion that preachers and evangelists were liars. I was active in a 12-Step recovery program and beginning a spiritual quest for truth. I have never called any preachers or evangelists liars. I cannot even bring myself to call those I believe teach false doctrines by such a name. Nor do I believe they are - although I think of them as misguided.

There is very little dispute about what the Bible teaches in regard to this topic. It teaches God created the earth in seven literal days. It teaches that God's authority comes from Him being the Creator. It teaches He is worthy of our worship based on Him being the Creator. And it teaches us to keep the Sabbath because on it He rested after the work of creation. How can anyone criticise a Bible-believing evangelist for teaching those things at a crusade?

Obviously not all of science supports the creation belief as taught by the Bible. However much of science does and the evidence that does suggest the Biblical record is wrong has plausible (while perhaps not always probable) explanations. Why would it be wrong for an evangelist to emphasize the evidence that supports the Biblical record and provide the plausible explanations for the evidence that is less supportive of it?

None of us know for sure how things happened and none of us should have a know-it-all attitude. Other denominations are having success with this approach. I know of one Adventist individual that is planning to use this approach. I see no reason to discourage it.

And this is a public forum, which many, many people follow. Her professional reputation, as well as her motives, were besmirched publicly. And you are suggesting that she should not know about that? The most basic concepts of fairplay demanded that she be informed, and have a right to respond.



IOW don't let her know that she was trashed on a public forum. Just sweep it under the rug and let the damage be done. Sorry, but I strongly disagree, and I think a lot of other people would to. And, I expect that she would have wanted to know that was said about her.


That is a preposterous statement. The only reason I do not here post the attacks bevin made against her and her professional reputation, are that they are so offensive. It would not be appropriate to repeat them.

Of course, Dr. Kennedy was only one victim of such attacks. The individual who made them against her, has done so against others, and continues to do so consistently. I find it interesting that you seem to spring to bevin's defense, and downplay the extremely offensive nature of what he said.



Quite the contrary. She pointed out enough fallacies in the long-age theory of the chalk deposits to substantially discredit it. KIM that Dr. Kennedy's participation was a ways down in the thread, after significant issues had been brought up to discredit the long age theory. As I recall, someone brought up the white cliffs as a kind of ace--the high card held in reserve.



That is absolutely a false statement. YOu did not make the contact with her, I did, and I know what happened. You are quite mistaken.



That is a rather demeaning statement. What does appear is that this professional scientist presented information which did not fit into what you and bevin professed to believe, and so you both, in different ways, sought to discredit her-bevin more crudely, you more subtly.



After you had given the very clear impression that you stood by bevin, in spite of the egregious offense which had been done to Dr. Kennedy, I dropped out of the discussion, and left you and bevin to continue your comraderie. Bevin did post after that, but I declined to continue, nor did anyone else respond to his post. So, the matter died.

You were the moderator of the thread, but I did not see your handling of the event as even-handed at all. I concluded that it would not be comfortable posting on that particular forum, as long as you were the moderator.

I should add that I would not have brought all this up at this point, except for the way you--again--characterized what happened, above. You brought it up in such a way that a response seems called for.

Perhaps you and bevin could start a pro-evolution society right here on C/A. You might as well.

I repeat, once more with feeling, I am not pro-evolution. I am looking for evidence and truth, and welcome it wherever it leads. I did not find Dr Kennedy's work convincing, at least at the level of detail it was presented in here.



I don't believe so. I think the problem here is that your approcah is to work from authority: if a scientist says it, we must uncritically accept it. The scientific approach is to work from evidence, and to challenge interpretations with evidence. I felt that we were put in a position in which challenging Dr Kennedy's conclusions was construed as an attack on her, when it was in no way intended to be. A professional scientist takes challenges to his/her work as a compliment, evidence that the work is being taken seriously, not an insult.

If, as you imply above, Dr Kennedy was a willing participant in the discussion, then I would expect her to be willing to come here, or else nominate some other forum, and actually discuss the work. Simply stating the conclusions, without references or citations, and effectively saying 'take it or leave it' is not scientific discourse.

In terms of the netiquette breach, your whole rant above is off the track. I would have been completely fine with you alerting her to the fact that there was a discussion of her work here, and inviting her to come and join that discussion. That is not what you did - you selected part of that discussion and e-mailed it to her out of context. The author did not give permission for that text to be used in that way: yes, this is an open forum, but writers write here knowing the context and the audience. That's the netiquette breach... and it's not the most important thing int he discussion, of course.

Anyway, as I said above, I think this history muddies this issue too much for it to be a useful one to discuss further. FWIW I don't think it's bevin's one 'ace in the hole', it's just one he picked... I'm sure there are others.

You can believe what you like about my motives and actions, but the truth is that I am looking for truth and honesty and openness and courtesy. I try hard to offer them as well as to look for them... and sometimes I fail.

The original discussion containing Dr Kennedy's comments about the Cliffs can be found here, so other readers can easily gauge the siutation for themselves...

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/80665/page/0/fpart/4

Going back to Bravus' fundamental issue.

Can Creation Science Evangelists avoid denigrating science? How does one present the concept that almost all of geology and evolutionary biology is wrong without attacking the whole scientific method?

How does one select valid "doubt raising" issues from out of the sea of discredited attacks Creation Scientists have used over the list 150+ years?

If Creation Science Evangelists do attack the whole scientific method, and if they do use discredited attacks, this will certainly weaken the witness of christianity to the portion of society that understands the issues, regardless of it's ability to misguide the portion that doesn't. Do we really want people tricked into becoming christians? Do we really want to bear a false witness because we haven't done our homework? Should we really support evangelists who haven't done their homework?

/Bevin

Creation scientists do not attack the scientific method. To charachterize them in that way is misleading. There are Christian universities and high schools around the would that teach biology, chemistry, physics, geology and other sciences from a creationsist prespective. They use the same facts, the same evidence and the same scientific methods.

The difference between evolutionists and creationists is their presupositions. Creationists assume there was a supernatural creator involved in the orgins of the universe. Evolutionists assume there was no supernatural creator involved. Thus creationists look at the same evidence, the same facts and use the same methods to learn about the Creator from the book of nature while evolutionists try to figure out how everything came to be without a creator. Most creationists are well educated on what the evolutionists believe while few evolutionists are well educated on what creationists believe.

Creationists become unattractive when they speak and act with arrogance like their evolutionist peers. I have seen a few that act like that. Not knowing God, it is understandable why evolutionists are full of themselves and arrogant. Having a relationship with the Savior of mankind should make creationists a humble contrast to their secular peers.

Going back to my question:
Why would it be wrong for an evangelist to emphasize the evidence that supports the Biblical record and provide the plausible explanations for the evidence that is less supportive of it?

You say that, but quite honestly, after reviewing the evidence of you posts, a definite slant appears. In fact, at one point you said that you were leaning toward evolution. Regardless of that statement, the evidence of you posts seems clear, and it is not what you presented above.



Earlier on the thread, you took bevin's cites of certain scientists at face value. As I recall, they did not go into the level of detail which Dr. Kennedy did.



You are quite mistaken, and my posts do not suggest what you have said. Also, don't forget that the challenge which you, or bevin, I dont recall which one, had presented was that you had never seen or heard a creation scientist refute the long-age theory when it came to the white cliffs/chalk deposits. I provided a statement by a creation scientist who pointed out discrepancies between the observed evidence and the long-age theory. However, you were not satisfied with that. You gave the appearance of wanting to subject her work/observations to a higher level of scrutiny than you did the evolutionists, whose work you seem to have accepted at face value. IOW you manifested a bent toward the long-age theory.



Challenging Dr. Kennedy's conclusions was not the issue. The personal attacks and demeaning statements about her personally, and her motives, were the issue. Are you really incapable of distinguishing between the two? But what came across was that here was a scientist who was poking holes in a favored theory, so the messenger--that is, the scientist was attacked.

I'm not sure if you truly realize the perceptions of what you and bevin did. YOu seem to continue to want to justify your course of action, and defend bevin. BTW in doing so, you certainly arre not acting as a neutral moderator. Do you recognize the possibiility that maybe you handled it in the wrong way?



That does not follow. She is not a member of this forum. Nor should she be expected to become a member of this forum. What you could have done, if you were really interested in finding out more, was to keep in touch with her, and for that matter follow it up with the creation science group who referred me to her. Have you done that?



That was not the context of what happened. A claim was made--basically that the long-age theory for the chalk deposits is the only scientifically acceptable explanation. Dr. Kennedy shared observations which tended to discredit that theory, and ou and bevin pounced on her. After all, she challenged your theory!



If the discussion of 'her work' had been of a more conventional nature, I think that would be one option, although she is not a member of his forum. However, it was not the mere discussion of 'her work,' but the personally deprecating and demeaning statements made about her, which she had a right to know about, and which you, as moderator should never have allowed. YOu should immediately have deleted those offensive, personal attacks from bevin's posts, but you failed to do your job. You blew it, but you continue to defend yourself. Why don't you simply accept the possibility that you may have handled it poorly--certainly, that is the perception of quite a few people--and see if you can learn from the unfortunate experience. IOW don't be determined to be right.


The demeaning statements and ridicule of Dr. Kennedy and her work, stood by themselves. The 'context' argument will not work here. Once again, you are trying to justify bevin. You seem to be unwilling to accept the possibility that what he said, and how you handled it, were quite out of line.



Sorry, but that argument doesn't fly. There are some basic boundaries in civil society. when those boundaries have been violated, 'permission' is not needed. In this case, those boundaries were violated. Id doesn't matter who or how many people read the offensive statmements. they were inappropriate in any context, and for any audience.

Let me see. YOu are an educator. That is a discipline, and I expect it is one in which you do well. the situation at issue here involves other disciplines, some of which I am familiar with and have experience in. You need to recognize that other issues are involved here, as to which you may not have the level of experience that you do in the field of teaching.





Yet you brought up the whole matter in a manner which, first of all, is clearing taking sides, you are not taking a neutral position as a moderator, and you certianly put me and my actions in a negative light. After doing so, you said that you were only making those two comments, and that was it. Yet, you are continuing to pursue this matter.



That, again, is evidence of your bias.



That is good to recognize that at times you fail, as we all do. Then stop trying to defend yourself.