There are no miracles in the Bible, I believe, just physical laws and actions and forces, aka advanced technology, that we don't understand. Of course, if one believes these accounts of "miraculous" healings and events aren't true, then he should trash-can the Bible as an unreliable collection of myths and distortions and lies. This would, I suppose, emasculate most Christian religions.

Neither should one ignore the trail of lies and fraud and errors littering the record of the "science" involved in "proving" evolution. Some "scientists", mainly in the past, would stoop at nothing in desperation to prove evolution was true, intent on leaving us a tainted record.

If we deny a 7-Creation/Colonization event because we think the Bible is rubbish, but have other equally unprovable theories, such as life created itself, that we claim is Truth, then we too bow before a mythical God, the God of Evolution, invoking not true science, only speculative science.

True science would involve observation and measurement of the original event, or, recreation of the event, neither which have occurred at this time.

We may be an extreme devotee of either evolution or creation or something in between, but whatever we believe, we just can't prove. We may be skilled in debate and be able to demolish our opponents with "logic" or "scientific" "proof", but perhaps that's all rubbish, too. "Where's the observational, actual proof, the hard evidence, not just words?" a skeptic might ask, for either.

Miller/Urey's experiments in synthesizing proteins in a hypothetical non-oxygen atmosphere took place around 50 years ago. How much longer will it take to create life in a test tube? Or has everyone given up.

Scammers may stage "miracle" shows, but I don't think that's how God operates. Mr. Clifford can say whatever he wants about miracles. Probably none of us humans knows what forces were involved in the origin of life or what forces were involved in the "miracles" described in the Bible. Perhaps they were the same.

Unless of course, we believe that a group of atoms and molecules had a meeting, developed some new theories, created a scientific organization with lectures and papers, then assembled chemically-based programs into self-replicating structures, thereby creating life.

It is unfortunate that “religion” or its misapplication, has generated misconceptions that have locked us into certain belief modes. Perhaps we will all be pleasantly surprised when ultimately, we see the truth.

Those are excellent articles, Shane

The thing I notice in both of them is an acknowlegement of and tolerance of the existence of SDA Evolutionists. This tolerance has not been demonstrated by Clifford.

My "about 50%" number came from an answer I was given a few years ago when I asked a Chairman of an SDA university/college science department what % of their faculty thought that evolution was correct.

This was well after the 1994 survey, but before the Faith and Science conferences.

The current atmosphere is somewhat poisoned by Clifford and others calling for a witch-hunt firing all such people from denominational employ.

/Bevin

This list doesn't tell us a great deal.

It is impossible to look at the list and determine (a) who has training in geology or biology, and (b) whether they are short-age creationists and who are long-age creationist/evolutionist.

Many of the scientists and theologians in SDA schools have learnt to be careful what they say about evolution and where they say it.

Clifford hasn't. He prefers to demonstrate his bias and his ignorance in the AR.

/Bevin

It is disingenious to work for Chevy and drive Toyotas. People who disagree with the Biblical account of creation should not be employed in our learning centers, and those that are should have the decency to step down.

My opinion,

olger

I have not seen anywhere that Clifford Goldstein has called for science professors that do not believe in Biblical creation to be fired or disfellowshipped? When and where did he do this?

In the Jul 26 2001 Goldstein column in the AR titled
"The Pythagoras Factor", Clifford likens everyone who doesn't believe in

() 6-day recent creation
() world-wide Noah's flood
() 6C origin of Daniel

to Satanists and calls on them to resign from church membership, and calls on our leaders and
adminstrators to expell them if they won't go.

/Bevin

I don't have access to that article but from Adventist Today's take, the satanist comment was referring to athiests. His point about evolutions was more encompassing too. He was talking about those that not only reject the 7-day creation but also reject the flood, inspration of Daniel, many of our 27 fundamental beliefs and our beliefs about 1844. And he has a point there. If someone doesn't believe half of the doctrines held by the Adventist church, should they actually belong to it? And while they may be allowed to stay in the church, should the church actually employ such people to teach at our schools and universities?

I believe in diversity in academia. I believe in teaching students how to think and not what to think. I don't believe a professor should be fired because he is more inclined to believe in creation-through-evolution than a literal 7-day creation. However when teachers and professors not only cast doubt on one doctrine - like the literal 7-day creation - but on several of the fundamental doctrines, there should come a point where the teacher or professor is asked to seek employment elsewhere and given a reasonable time period, like a year, to make such a transition. Such action seems like we are trying to control what others think and believe but in actuallity we shouldn't have instructors in our institutions of learning teaching things contrary to our beliefs. I have no issues letting such people remain in our membership but not as teachers.

The Voice of Prophecy has a take on it as well,

Quote:

---

There was an editorial of some controversy in my own denomination’s paper not so long ago, entitled “The Pythagoras Factor — Again,” by Clifford Goldstein. And he makes the observation that rank-and-file believers of a church have a right to expect that the pastors and the college professors in that church system hold to and support the core pillars of the faith. True, there must be academic freedom; there must be scholastic inquiry and spiritual humility as the quest for biblical knowledge continues. But it’s inappropriate, Goldstein writes, for a fictional dad named “George” to send his kid off to this Christian college, pay x dollars in tuition, and then later discover that teachers at the school, who inwardly don’t hold to the teachings of the denomination, have quietly subverted the educational process.

---

Here is the most relevant part of the article. It is available on the AR website to anyone who has paid their very reasonable annual subscription. (Aside: This web access was a very nice addition to the AR).

Clifford writes (emphasis mine)

Quote:

---

Of course, once they agree that an atheist or a Satanist shouldn’t be an Adventist theology teacher or pastor, they agree that the church does have the
right to close its pulpits and classrooms to those it deems outside certain theological parameters.

Though Satanists and atheists are easy ones, what about someone who doesn’t accept a literal six-day Creation? Or who teaches that Daniel was written in the second century B.C. as opposed to the sixth? Should we have to allow someone on a theology faculty who accepts only 24 of the 27
fundamentals? Or maybe only 16 or 12 or 3? Where’s the cutoff point, because clearly there must be one somewhere (after all, one of the fundamentals deals with belief in God Himself)?

By defining the parameters of its faith, the church automatically excludes what doesn’t fit within them. To proclaim Jesus as Messiah is, by default, to place outside our parameters all stances that reject Jesus as the Messiah. To believe that God created the world in six literal 24-hour days means to reject all contradictory views (such as theistic evolution and so forth).

Again, what Adventist will tolerate an avowed Satanist in
one of our pulpits preaching nude moonlight dance rituals or
the use of black magic? But what about someone who rejects
the sixth-century date of Daniel, or a worldwide flood, or the pre-Advent judgment beginning in 1844? For me it’s hard to understand why one who rejects those teachings would even want to be an Adventist, much less teach or preach among us. But the issue isn’t if they want to; the issue is Should they even be allowed to (that is, teach or preach among us)?

Our leaders and administrators not only must define the
parameters of our faith; they have the right — even the obligation — to enforce them.

---

Clifford does not say it is okay to not believe some of the Fundamental Beliefs. He uses the word "or".

Then he says that the leadership has the obligation to to fire anyone who doesn't believe all of them.

I got a very nice response to my letter to the AR about this article. The response, not from anyone obvious, told me that it was Clifford's own opinion, that it was not the AR's policy to limit their writers, and that people at the GC had directly confronted him about the inappropriateness of this article.

In Nov 28 2002 her revisited this topic with "The Pythagoras Factor - again"

He starts by acknowledging the push-back

Quote:

---

Most columnists (I imagine) have faced this paradox: you pen (what you deem) a provocative, in-your-face piece that ultimately elicits only long dry yawns. In contrast, during an intellectual and creative torpor, you hack out what feels obvious, even bland, and you incite outrage. The latter depicts what happened with “The Pythagoras Factor” (July 26, 2001), in which I expressed a position whose
apparentness was (I thought) axiomatic to the point of boorishness: that a volunteer organization, such as our church, had the right, even the duty, to be sure that its teachers and preachers believed what we as a church claim to believe.

Hardly an epochal or pioneering notion, to be sure. However—judging by the cascade of angry letters, by the fulminations and diatribes against me on the Internet, by an article in an independent journal lambasting my position, and by a rancorous tongue-lashing in the hallowed halls of the General Conference—it’s obvious that some not only rejected my position (that our preachers and teachers should believe what we as a church believe), but thought it outrageous

---

He then argues that his only real point is that teachers etc. should believe ALL the standard SDA beliefs

Quote:

---

Shouldn’t George, who’s paying big bucks for his son’s education, have the assurance that those who teach his child Adventist beliefs actually believe them themselves, rather than just spouting the party line in order to keep their jobs?

---

The thing that Clifford misses in this defense of his first article, completely and utterly misses, is that you are NOT required to believe all the 28 Fundamentals to be an SDA in good standing.

Notice this is Nov 2002, compared to Jul 2001 for the first article. He hasn't learnt anything from the feed-back in that period.

Several years later he publishes yet another column where he is more for tolerance.

Then this week he publishes this attack on a completely wrong straw-man mis-statement of science.

/Bevin

Quote:

---

Clifford does not say it is okay to not believe some of the Fundamental Beliefs. He uses the word "or".
Then he says that the leadership has the obligation to to fire anyone who doesn't believe all of them.

---

I didn't see that at all. What I saw was he was saying the line should be formalized. He makes the point that a line exists now. We will not allow an athiest or Satanist behind a pulpet or in a classroom. So just where is the line? It would be good for our conferences and univeristies to make that clarification. As it is now a pastor or teacher doesn't know where the line is until they cross it and find themselves in the unemployment line.

I spoke with Cliff via email in late 2001. He said a few souls had shouted at him for his article but the overwhelming majority admitted that he was right.

My words to him "Do not allow yourself to be intimidated by a few people who call into questioin your integrity because you stand for something."

For over thirty years now, a self announced progressive wing of the Adventist Movement has promoted re-interpretation of every doctrine of the church. Should their efforts prevail, there will be little beyond a lingering sentiment left to tie us to the truths of God. This has fostered a unique pool of "members" who feel free to pick & choose among the doctrines of the church. They shop cafeteria style and assemble for themselves a suitable selection.

What is the basis for this auto-developed mindset? The same sins that Israel struggled with. According to Isaiah: pride & rebellion.

I have had some of each, and found in Jesus a mighty Healer of hearts and a Restorer of truth.

People who disagree with the church's beliefs should have the decency to move elsewhere. It is like joining a conservative Mennonite group and demanding to have a television & automobile. Far better to check our pride & rebellion at the Lord's door.

olger