I read the Adventist Review
Here's the kind of letter I would write to the Adventist Review if I could write under my own name:
I feel so frustrated with our church leadership. I am referring to Mark A. Kellner’s editorial “Darwin’s Dead, but Jesus Lives!” (May 14, 2009).I didn't write it, but Micheal Godfrey did, and his letter was printed in the July 9, 2009 issue of the Adventist Review. It's the first letter of its kind I've ever read in the Adventist Review. May it not be the last.
Church leaders keep pretending that there really is no problem between the current interpretation of the Bible and what science is finding. They wonder why so many young people are leaving the church. Part of the problem is that the church’s schools teach the young about how to do things scientifically (math, physics, chemistry, geology, biology), but then the church asks them to ignore the huge gap between the current theology and science. What the church is doing is creating the “God of confusion” for many young (and old) who just can’t reconcile the two.
It's just the kind of question Bettina Krause ought to have asked in this episode of Intersection:
But there weren't any questions like that. Even Cliff was soft and squishy, and that's saying a lot.
But let's head back to the Adventist Review, where Stephen Chavez reveals a stunning lack of familiarity with basic evolutionary theory:
When a summer heat wave or a particularly threatening virus comes along, “at-risk” portions of the population are urged to take precautions—the young, the elderly, the feeble.Turn the page, and you can read Jan Paulsen's recent statement on origins again.
Why? If society is governed by the principle “survival of the fittest,” why be concerned about the weak, the marginalized, the infirm? Why not just let nature take its course?
The same with the current preoccupation with the health of the planet: you can hardly go a week without hearing about how this or that ecosystem is being threatened. Hey, isn’t that what evolution is all about? Evolve or die?
3 comments:
Dear Mr. Chavez:
Regarding your article on evolution you stated:
[Copy-pasted quote from the article]
I would like to point out that humans, being social, improve their fitness through cooperation with other people. Even if survival of the fittest were taken as a basis for morals, it would imply treating other people well. Same thing with the environment. We have to cooperate with it, by protecting it, to ensure our own survival.
The explanation of evolution on your article is not "what evolution is all about". This fight against science and verifiable fact by the church will continue to drive away the young, especially today were all sorts of claims can be verified with the click of a mouse.
Sadly, the explanation of evolution on your article is not "what evolution is all about". This fight against science and verifiable fact by the church will continue to drive away the young, especially today were all sorts of claims can be verified with the click of a mouse.
There is a huge gap between current SDA theology and science. Misrepresenting science is not the right way to breach it.
Thank you so much for your time.
What a wonderfully written piece by Paulsen! Too bad he has such a disregard for scientific evidence that he implores the minions to tow the line. Such a communicator could actually lead if he had any sense!
I guess we have to take it in stride. After all, it was only a few years ago that movies and wedding rings became more acceptable.
Alexis, you've given me an idea.
Tom, you're way more optimistic than I am.
Post a Comment