Comment on La Sierra Univeristy Fires Dr. Lee Greer; Signs anti-Creation Bond by BobRyan.
Phillip Brantley: Seventh-day Adventist beliefs are not based on science. They are based on Scripture. The Church does not have a sectarian approach to science, anymore than it has a sectarian approach to volleyball or mathematics. Accordingly, financing the science building with revenue bonds is no more remarkable or problematic than financing the gymnasium and mathematics building with revenue bonds.
I have previously established in various comments that there is no such thing as creation science.
1. The SDA church is recognized as the pioneer in establishing creation science.
2. There is no such thing as state-sponsored “volleyball evolution”. So a just-the-facts presentation of volleyball does not have to deal with myths, and legends about dust,gas,rocks being able to form a volleyball court “given enough time”. And so just teaching actual volleyball sans-evolutionist-mythology does not look sectarian.
Even so – our courses in exercise and health would most certainly include our health message and its relationship to the last day message of Seventh-day Adventists. See Larry Blackmer’s comments affirming that point about the mission of our Universities.
BobRyan Also Commented
Phillip Brantley: I have just now read the responsive statement made by La Sierra University that is posted on the advindicate.com website.
Might I suggest to the critics of La Sierra University that a sheepish retreat and a period of self-examination might be appropriate?
I find it interesting that LSU still-stuck in a closed-door agreement not to teach sectarian SDA views of origins, science, creation in their science class rooms is a cause for Educate Truth to begin a “sheepish retreat”!!
What is the thinking there??
Oh wait I know – it “is all better” because instead of this being a backdoor move by Wisbey alone – the entire LSU board was in on it.
I think there are now enough ex-board members floating around that were on the board at the time of that bond signing – so that some fresh perspective on that point could be had.
But whether it was the entire LSU board (all fully appraised on the bond obligation not to teach any actual SDA views of science, origins, biology, life, creation, nature – in science class) or the actions of a few or if the board were simply told they could ignore that language in the bond and that lawyers would bail them out if trouble came up from the state, time will tell.
As it stands now – LSU is apparently not in violation of any 2008 stipulation that they promote blind-faith evolutionism and not creationism as if evolutionism were actually true, so we have yet to “test the claim” that some are making on that point about it being ok to teach our SDA views on nature, young life creationism, intelligent design, origins etc in those buildings.
La Sierra Univeristy Fires Dr. Lee Greer; Signs anti-Creation Bond
First we see this warm fuzzy group-hug style post so typical of liberals being tolerant to a fault with those they disagree with —
You’re dealing with people here who are motivated by hatred and intolerance. I don’t know how else to state it.
And then we get the oft repeated response to it.
I don’t hate evolutionists. Many of my very good friends are evolutionist, some are agnostic, and a few are atheists. Yet, we get along great. The difference, you see, is that they don’t expect to get a paycheck from the SDA Church for promoting their neo-Darwinian views…
The idea is that any opposition to evolutionism “is hateful” by definition unless it is cast in a “evolutionism is probably right but I believe creationism anyway” sort of fashion.
Kent keeps reminding us of that canard every now and then.
Faith: “Accordingly, financing the science building with revenue bonds is no more remarkable or problematic than financing the gymnasium and mathematics building with revenue bonds.”
True, if you have no intention of teaching Scripture-based Creation in your science classrooms
For the sake of perspective – recall that Brantly argues the extreme position that neither creation science (nor even Intelligent Design?) should be allowed in our science class rooms.
Thus in his “evolution only world” our science department could not help but be in line with the demands of a very secular state agenda for a science building.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind