Other denominations are doing it and some Adventist evangelists are starting to take the approach too. This past Sabbath the wife of one of our members was telling me that her husband hopes to be a "Creation Science Evangelist". For a movement that is to call the dying world to "Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." this seems somewhat overdue.



Night One: The Age of The Earth
Night Two: Rocks & Fossils
Night Three: Dinosaurs
Night Four: Evolution, Communism & Racism
Night Five: Noah's Flood

Night Six: Sin & The Garden
Night Seven: Sin's Remedy
Night Eight: Stars & The Universe

Night Nine: The Bible & The Dead Sea
Night Ten: A Call to Worship The Creator
Night Eleven: Beasts of Bible Prophecy
Night Twelve: God's Law & The Cross
Night Thirteen: God's Rest for Man
Night Fourteen: The Antichrist
Night Fifteen: God's Judgement on a Sinful World

Night Sixteen: Dead In Christ
Night Seventeen: The Devil & Hell
Night Nineteen: A Living Sacrifice
Night Twenty: Forgiveness & Repentence
Night Twentyone: Jesus Returns

Sigh

At exactly the time that the GC officials are continuing a very enlightening Science and Faith discussion, where they are conceding that the issues are very complex...

you get ignorant church members preparing to tell the general public about how certain the SDA church is that the evolutionists are wrong.

Regardless of whether you are an informed creationist or an informed evolutionist, one thing is VERY clear... the evidence against evolution is not-very-solid at best, and it is extremely misleading to pretend otherwise.

/Bevin

Now this is a good example of ignorance

The objective of creation science evangelism is not to prove evolution wrong. Evolution can no more be proven wrong than it can be proven to be correct. The objective of creation science evangelism is to cast doubt on evolution and show the Bible does not nesasarily controdict science. It is a form of evangelism that uses the complexities of nature to reveal who God is. While it doesn't prove evolution to be wrong, it shows the Bible is not opposed to science.

Ultimately faith is believing in what cannot be seen and trusting in what cannot be proven. Creation science evangelism doesn't seek to diminish that type of faith. It simply teaches that Biblical faith is not unreasonable or outdated. It shows that while modern science has cast doubt on the Biblical record, it is not conclusive or beyond criticism itself.

Evolution can no more be proven wrong than it can be proven to be correct. The objective of creation science evangelism is to cast doubt on evolution ... -Shane

Is it possible that such tactics will alienate those who see through them?

It simply teaches that Biblical faith is not unreasonable or outdated -Shane.

Faith itself is never outdated. Does it have to be reasonable? Isn't faith useful only for what we cannot know? Shouldn't we find out as much as we can factully acertain before we need to rely on faith? If the Bible is 'incorrect' shouldn't we find that out? Maybe our use of the word 'incorrect' is adopted because we might have a false conception of the meaning of or the intention of the Bible in that certian case and the Bible is not 'incorrect' at all in the light of science.

Why can't evangelists think on those questions and leave room for people to have their own opinons on scientific matters. It is hard enough to teach people to have a spiritual experience and to be kind, loving, caring, helpful persons. -Allan

I don't know what tactics are being referred to here. Casting doubt on evolution or trying to prove it wrong? Casting doubt is a good thing and trying to prove it wrong is not so wise.



This I have to take exception to. I once had faith in a car but as it grew old I lost faith in it. I could come up with numerous other examples. Creation science evangelism teaches people that the Bible isn't like my old car. The faith of our fathers is as trustworthy today as it was when they sailed on the Mayflower.

We live in a world today where people are taught there is no god or that god is something mythical like mermaids, unicorns and flying dragons. Creation science evangelists teach that the armor of science is not without flaws. Science is not bulletproof. If the people are going to have faith in the Bible, they must realize that there is a real possability that the Bible is right and evolution is wrong. Otherwise believing in the Bible becomes like believing in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. If the Biblical story of creation cannot be trusted, nor can the prophets or the Son of Man that believed it be.

Was it your faith that grew old or your car? I was thinking of faith in God, and God doesn't grow old, and become worn out. I suppose our interpretations, conceptions or opinons could be shown not worthy of faith. The Bible isn't like an old car. But maybe your or my understanding of it is like an old car.

Biblical faith does NOT require a belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis. There are millions of loving and lovable Christian's who have faith in the Bible as the Word of God, and yet who believe that Genesis is not scientifically accurate and was never intended to be.



How does getting a speaker - someone who don't understand the issues and who makes over-stated arguments that anyone can disprove with just a few minutes of internet research - constitute a sensible way of criticising science? It tells you a lot more about the psychology of the speaker and about the organisation they are promoting than it does about science.

/Bevin

I agree that there are millions of Christians today who have faith in God yet who believe in evolution.

While I personally am a creationist, I don't favor pressing people to make a hard and fast decision on these scientific questions. I also favor serious and public debate on the subject. I honestly don't trust either creationists or evolutionists to tell the whole truth about the strengths and weaknesses of each side of the question. Therefore, in my view, a dialectic is necessary and beneficial to all sincere seekers after truth.

I think it's entirely debatable whether Genesis is scientifically accurate or was intended to be. I don't think it is something we can take for granted that the Bible is wrong, which, however, is what many supporters of evolution teach. That is why I favor open, serious debate on the facts and issues. As a fomer member of a militantly anti-God, pro-evolutionary organization (the Socialist Workers Party), I can tell you that most of the evolutionists with whom I associated were atheistic and ignorant not only of the Bible but of creation theory and even of the weakness in the arguments supposedly favoring evolution. (They would make the most nonsensical statements about God and the Bible that you could imagine yet they would do it with the greatest self-confidence. They did the same in debates about abortion where they referred to the fetus as a mere "parasite". My side lost big in a debate at San Diego State U once when all the pro-life side did was show slides of babies in the trash can. My side didn't even bother to continue the debate.)

By the way, when you say "intended", do you mean intended by the author/s or by God?





It seems to me you are evidently assuming a "straw man" here. While I think you are right that such speakers do exist, I am convinced that not all speakers on the subject of creationism lack an understanding of the issues or make over-stated arguments. To the extent that such speakers exist, however, I believe your objection is well taken, but I am sure even you would admit that you've not described accurately nearly all who speak on the topic. If you honestly believe the speaker is deficient in the areas you referred to, I would suggest that you yourself go to such meetings and request to debate the speaker in an open forum. If that is not allowed, perhaps you could at least pose questions. I don't believe the Bible as God's truth has anything to fear from such an investigation and debate.

I have noticed that many debates on the existence of God usually don't even bring up the subject of evolution/creationism, either because both sides agree it is too complex and can lead to various conclusions or because they think it is irrelevent, since, as you yourself remark, the question of evolution vs. creationism is not necessarily a defining point when it comes to determining whether a person views himself as a Christian or not.

Finally, I think in general it is a great idea for people to study the issues with a view to becoming a creation/science evangelist. It will help to raise a lot of people's awareness of the questions involved and of what the Bible actually teaches, perhaps even about the Sabbath and God's law, and that increase in knowledge can only result in a positive outcome. Don't you agree?