LSU Board news release and actions
Public relations director, Larry Becker, emailed us three documents that were released as a result of the Board meetings on Wednesday and Thursday.
comments (136) | Leave a Reply
PingBack/TrackBack
-
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 -
Like or Dislike:
0 0
Leave a Reply
November 13, 2009
Comments will be open for reactions for 14 days.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
6
November 13, 2009
I want to be hopeful. I recognize this board is in a tough position. But the affirmation by Dr. Wilson still seems vague. There was not an affirmation by Dr. Wilson that the Adventist belief in a six-day creation week will be upheld. Will theistic evolution be taught as truth in the department or will it not? If it is Adventist beliefs on creation are not being “embraced.” This is important. Though I thank the board for some strait comments, the professors will ultimately be the ones responsible for carrying them out.
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
7
November 13, 2009
Somewhat like our public school district board did when it wanted to avoid making a decision or campaign for a decision that is unpopular — let’s form a committee to study the issue.
I think the letter sounds positive.
It is very, very important to get proper representation on the study committee and people who will work to come up with the goals outlined for the committee. This will be a make it or break it committee — and if Satan is astir, the committee reps will be handpicked by him to block a 6-day creation curriculum guidelines.
Now is the time for soldiers of the cause to step forth and actively, prayerfully, and “creatively” serve to come up with curriculum solutions and documentation for science classes — clearly, fairly written to support doctrines and support our youth under the control of professors who discourage belief.
Be very careful who is named for the committee — and the balance.
Just like when Loma Linda U held “forums” to discuss presidential candidates. All 4 forum members (and the moderator) were voting for Obama — no McCain supporter invited. I have seen this done many times — stack the group. I heard that the latest health care forum contain only health care professionals who support Obamacare. I was not there, but was told that by an attendee. That is just like our union used to do at teacher meetings — woops, we thought the “forum group” was balanced. Sorry, we’ll do better next time . . . in 31 years, the next time was always the same. It became the conservative teachers’ joke — oh yea, the union will represent us (no way, Jose).
I may seem too realistic, but that how it is in public school land — and since becoming a new Adventist, I think it was good training since I see many of the same tactics within groups within our church, unfortunately. Been there, seen that fortunately so I am not knocked into confusion as easily.
Overall, good job faithful servants — but the job is only 1/3 done now . . . march onward!
This is a hill to die on.
JoAnn
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
7
November 13, 2009
Sounds like a grand statement in support of creation but nothing about evolution or against it being taught in the classroom. I thought that was what this was all about as well. I do agree that the creation issue is important and a good step but the evolution issue is equally important. They were very careful to skirt this issue and in fact even tried to point to the science department as believing in God–that has never really been in question. In the end, students will just have to take another class. One that they will probably either enjoy or not. Notice the wording of the statement even may in imply that the University is trying to uphold open-minded education and avoid pitfalls of the opposite. I find all this interesting.
Nothing has changed but more work for the students. Seems like the children of Israel in Egypt–they just a high of quota of bricks the first time Moses talked to Pharoh. I’m not saying we are Moses or anything but you guys may not need to give up on the first try.
Just some thoughts.
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
9
November 13, 2009
It does seem that the Educate Truth crowd lost significant ground today as much of the subtext of their organizing has focused on getting some of the biology department faculty fired.
The Press-Enterprise writes:
The petition does not call for the dismissal of the three La Sierra biology professors who are at the center of the controversy. But Hilde said “that ultimately is what happens in these situations.”
According to Shane Hilde, what “ultimately is what happens in these situations” did not happen. At the top governance level.
In addition, despite a lot of press, online activity and a lot of fervor, they failed to reach their signature goal by 40%.
That is a win for academic freedom and an Adventist future that values unity in diversity.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
28 
39
November 13, 2009
To the contrary Alex. The church lost nothing today, and made incredible strides that would have never happened had it not been for the grass roots effort of the laity.
I was not expecting anyone to be fired. My comment that you quoted was in reference to other situations that have arisen in the past within the church. I would rather not have anyone fired or asked to resign; however, if this situation is to be fully resolved then I don’t see any other way out. If there is another way, I’d be very excited to know about.
Yes, we didn’t meet our goal of 10,000. Considering we only had 5 1/2 months to gather signatures, 6,000+ isn’t bad. On average we were collecting over 1,000 signatures per month.
Failure? Laughable! This is success, and I believe more is to come for the church.
You seem to think that the church shares your position on this issue, and that we’re in the minority. Reality check, as demonstrated today once again. The church will not stand for one of its institutions misrepresenting one of its most fundamental beliefs.
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
46 
20
November 13, 2009
First, thank you Brother Hilde for both your vigilance in this arena and the patient, generous spirit you exhibit. I like to see and appreciate both sides of an issue, but this is one of those areas that simply does not allow for a second opinion. Teachers (and ministers) of integrity certainly would not consider continuing to draw a paycheck drawn from the tithe, tuition and generosity of faithful Seventh-day Adventists after concluding that some of our basic teachings are wrong. Surely these scholars are qualified to find employment in one of the thousands of institutions that embrace the theory of evolution.
The board’s replies are a disappointment to me. I hope I am mistaken, but I see a passing on of responsibility and stalling for time. I am a teacher. I can “cover” a prescribed curriculum contrary to my beliefs while clearly making my opinions known to my students. Without clear accountability from professors this problem will continue to fester. Still, our Father’s hands are not tied, and we are all accountable to him.
Rejoice always.
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
43 
12
November 13, 2009
In some ways I find the three letters encouraging. They definitely have a pro-6-day-creation statement in them. I felt this was a step in the right direction.
On the other hand, as others above have noted, they are less clear about the future of evolutionary instruction. All of the messages come across in vague language that sounds like double-talk. On the one hand, they could be doing this because they fear angering the evolutionist crowd by coming out against Darwinism outright. On the other hand, they could be doing this because they are not yet willing to take a stand on the underlying issue of evolution being taught at LSU. I guess at this juncture we can only say that time will tell.
I felt that some of the language placed the burden of producing a “scientifically rigorous affirmation” largely on GRI. As if to say that if GRI’s approach is not deemed scientific enough, they will not make any substantial changes. And this possibly leads into a great debate over whether Creationism can be “scientifically proven,” and if not, then whether Creationism has a place in the science context. (I feel it cannot be “proven,” and yet very much holds a place in Adventist science education. And so perhaps this is where the battle lines will be drawn.)
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
7
November 13, 2009
The problem is faith in God’s Word. The reason we parents sacrifice to send our children to an Adventist institution is because we want them educated without their faith being undermined. How can someone who doesn’t have that faith, teach it to our children? Telling them to support the church’s doctrines won’t do it. Our church has many excellent scientists who believe in a six-day creation with all their hearts, and know the scientific evidence that supports it, and the answers to the arguments of the evolutionists. That is what we need, not the half-hearted cooperation of some professor who really believes in theistic evolution in his heart!
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
43 
6
November 13, 2009
I am deeply troubled by the ambiguous tone of this statement. No definitive assurance is offered to the church and constituents of this institution that faculty and administrators at La Sierra University stand unreservedly in support of a literal, six-day creation as taught in Scripture and the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy, and that no administrator or faculty member who denies the historicity of the Biblical creation account will be permitted to continue as a University employee. Anything short of this assurance is profoundly unacceptable.
It has been abundantly clear in recent months that certain of the faculty on the LSU campus do not hold to the church’s beliefs on this issue. If their words mean anything at all, the only honest thing that can be done is to terminate their employment. Integrity demands no less. Unless there are tangible consequences for unfaithfulness to the doctrinal message and mission of the church, no volume of fine words can mean a thing.
There is no need for a “study group” to examine the creation/evolution controversy. What is needed is a study group to determine the extent to which faculty and administrators on our campuses adhere to the church’s established position on this subject. The church stands without ambiguity for the Bible/Spirit of Prophecy position. No reconsideration of our stand is necessary. All this will amount to is delaying tactics, with the hope that watchfulness and the demand for accountability will eventually fade. This dare not happen.
Those who have raised this protest and signed the petition have done the right thing. The conscience of the church has been aroused. But it cannot be permitted to go back to sleep. This statement from the board will not satisfy the faithful, because it lacks the ringing affirmation of Bible truth the faithful seek. Until such affirmation is offered, and the faculty and staff of LSU clarify beyond doubt that they stand for the Bible-based teachings of the church, the protest must and will continue.
Please don’t anyone be beguiled by the misuse of Ellen White’s statement that students should be “thinkers and not mere reflectors of other men’s thoughts.” When this statement is quoted by theological liberals, it must be remembered that such persons hold ALL religious beliefs to be “other men’s thoughts” rather than the trascendent Word of the eternal God. To make it appear that Ellen White’s writings would sanction the favorable teaching in Adventist schools of Darwinian evolution, or any sort of pluralistic model for Adventist theological or scientific education, is fantastic nonsense.
There is simply no room in the Seventh-day Adventist Church for believers in the Darwinian model of origins. There is even less room for such persons on any Seventh-day Adventist educational faculty. Unless words are attended by deeds, the LSU board’s recent statement leaves us right where we were when this controversy was initially raised.
May the voice of the protesting faithful continue to rise in its demand for accountability, is my prayer.
In His service,
Pastor Kevin Paulson
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
67 
15
November 13, 2009
I believe that this represents a significant victory, provided the resolution is carried forward as stated above. I did notice that the plan includes input from the Geoscience Research Institute. This is quite telling, because up to now, the material published by our scholars working at said entity were being ignored by the LSU Science teachers on the pretext that their work did not include peer review. Of course, peer review means the approval of evolutionist authors. The inclusion of Fundamental Belief # 6 is quite telling as well!
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
3
November 14, 2009
Unfortunately, the GRI will be a small minority. The committees can easily be stacked so as to justify LSU’s current manner of teaching evolution as the answer to life on this planet — evolution superintended by God, perhaps, but not creation by divine fiat.
I agree with the posters who suggest that the formation of committees is a way of stalling and even continuing as it was. The criteria for including a six-day creation perspective seem to have been set in such a way as to most likely exclude it as a genuine scientific perspective.
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
7
November 14, 2009
It seems like we have a lot on our side as far as proof goes, but it seems like teachers are feeling they need to prove this is so. What has happened to teaching that we are to have faith in what the Word of God says? What happened to teaching and believing that when a teaching goes against the Word of God that it is proof that it is error…period!! I know, I may sound like I don’t even live in this age, but I believe that God’s law does not change…. that God does not change! If it was truth to believe the Word of God is the final proof for us as Seventh-day Adventists years ago…. then it should be today too. If God does not change and we believe that the Bible is of God, then how can we change in our faith in what it says?
I realize that there are many that need proof and that is sad. True Seventh-Day Adventists will follow “just” because the Bible says it, regardless of what others say against it. We are not here to be popular, we are here to follow God in HIS Truth and not that which the world teaches.
Should we continue to allow teachers to teach our children error, against the teachings of the Bible, then the blood of the lost children will be upon us. Teachers of error need to be let go… now! Already who knows how many have been led astray by going to this school. The science of the world will only prepare our children to perish as did those in the time of the flood. They listened to the leaders, the men of science who said that it had never before rained, that this is impossible. How long will we allow the teaching of the world in our schools preparing the Churches children to perish in the end?
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
5
November 14, 2009
The SDA Church just finished a three year world-wide study (2002-2004)of this issue with a firm endorsement of a recent six day creation. Do we need to repeat this again, and so soon? No number of studies are gong to be able to revise the clear direct statement both written and spoken by God in Exodus 20:11 that “God did it all in six days.” It would be regrettable if the discussions bogged down into semantics as is often the case. At LSU part of the issue has been about what is science and what should be taught in the science classes. This is not a very fruitful approach because, especially during the last century, science has literally enclosed itself into a limited materialistic (naturalistic)philosophy that excludes God, and “we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.” (from biologist Lewontin at Harvard U.)In searching for the real truth in nature, one should not limit one’s conclusions to simple materialism in case God exists! There is plenty of scientific data that points to God (see my latest book), but at present it is not fashionable in science to include God in the explanatory menu. Most of the pioneers of modern science (Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Galileo, Pascal, Linne, etc. did very good science while including God as an active agent who established the laws of nature that make possible the study of science. It seems to me that this broad aproach is more likely to give us truth than the current closed system of science that excludes the possibility of God in its publications. I would hope that the students in Biology at LSU would be given this broader outlook. Furthermore, I don’t think that we need another study to try and see if possibly God was less than candid in giving us the Ten Commandmnts! It would be a strange kind of God who would create life over billions of years, and then ask us to keep the Sabbath holy because he created all in six days! We have no more direct words from God than the Ten Commandmants.
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
5
November 14, 2009
I appreciate the efforts that have been made to call LSU to account for the trust they have been given.
Having read their statements, I see nothing in them which indicates a change in direction – they are not unequivocal affirmations of biblical creation, nor do they commit to any definite course of action to positively correct the blatant and obvious defects in the teachings of their current faculty. They do not acknowledge any wrongdoing on their part but affirm both faith and science as if they have always done just that!
There is little need to form further committees, no other Adventist university is calling loudly for it. The church has already committed to what it believes about the origins of earth and the place of science in education. We do not need a committee of scientists and theologians to discover that what is being taught at LSU in science is a miserable failure as far as Adventism is concerned.
They may be genuine but anyone who has been part of church organisation for long enough knows that calling for a committee to be formed is often a way of taking something off the agenda until you can gain vantage ground!
Press on!
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
4
November 14, 2009
This is encouraging. There was a time when there was a question of if LSU would be willing to affirm the church’s belief on Creation, now it has.
Of course it remains to be seen how this policy will be implemented but let’s pray for the best and keep informed about the progress.
As far as the professors personal beliefs on the subject goes, I would hope that they would be honest enough to look elsewhere for employment if they cannot support the values and beliefs of their employing institution. I would certainly not attempt to work for a religious organization if I couldn’t support it’s core fundamental beliefs.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
3
November 14, 2009
I would like to first of all thank Shane and those that worked with him for their tireless efforts to expose the error on origins at LSU. I would also like to thank and acknowledge the board of trustees for taking the time to consider the terrible dilemma their science department is in, in teaching a philosophy that is entirely foreign to Adventism and the Bible. This is a step in the right direction. At face value we would think that these men have resolved to make certain that our beliefs in the biblical account of origins as stated in the Bible would be preserved and ‘enforced.’
However, that may not be the case. No mention was made concerning contracting and dismissing faculty that refuse to uphold our teachings on origins, in order to maintain our biblical beliefs on origins at LSU. Did the trustees deem this unnecessary? On what grounds? Quotes from Ellen White on the necessity of individual thinking and not reflectors or other men’s thoughts were made in defense of learning and dissemination of data to students. Are these men aware that the author of these quotes believed believed strongly in biblical creationism and would object to teaching otherwise?
While ad hoc committees may be fine for the overall purposes of fine-tuning our didactic methodology at LSU and Adventist institutions on the sciences dealing with origins; the issue lies primarily with LSU; this is not to excuse other Adventist institutions; but we are dealing first with LSU. Does it take sub-committees to fix the problem at La Sierra U? Would it not be wise to have included a local committee whose parameters would be to see how to deal with faculty that disbelieve in Adventist teachings in science? And to ensure that individuals contracted to teach at LSU sign a proposition to uphold and maintain the Adventist beliefs and teachings, and specifically as they apply to the sciences that deal with creationism?
I feel that we should give the men the opportunity to act on their proposals. However, we should begin to develop a mechanism that would reach out to all Adventist churches, specifically the young people, making them aware of the progress of our institutions, including LSU, on fidelity to our doctrines. If it means discouraging young people from attending these institutions, or avoiding certain courses (may not be realistic), or to encourages churches to not contribute monetary gifts to Adventist education until our leaders see that they adhere to our beliefs, we should begin to do so. Why should we return the Lord’s tithe and offerings to institutions that abuse it with ungodly philosophies?
May God bless us as we move forward to bring honour and glory to his wonderful name and presence among us at the church level, the home level and the school dimension.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
6
November 14, 2009
Amen Pastor Kevin.
They just let the smoke out of the bag…mirrors soon to follow. It appears to be another delay tactic and no real action to remove or rebuke the teachers of long term evolution or repent of what has been taking place. If they were truly sorry for what has happened there should be immediate removal of teachers of error and public apologies/repentance. Time to awaken more SDAs to what is taking place. I am preparing a new presentation for SDAs. Just as bad are the teachers who have written a book promoting same-sex loving relationships as being accepted by God. Please email me Pastor Kevin, I’d like to talk to you.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
7
November 14, 2009
Unfortunately, my impression of the documents was very similar to most of yours, in that the calling for a committee seems more of a stall tactic than a commitment to genuine action. There is an overall positive tone to the documents, and I’m glad for that. This whole effort was not a failure, and I would even go so far as saying that the ball has been nudged in the right direction.
I can’t fault LSU for standing by a commitment to produce students capable of thinking for themselves, or for wanting to pursue a rigorous scientific curriculum. While we certainly should be practicing faith in the Bible to establish our beliefs (rather than establishing our beliefs because we think we’ve proved or disproved something), we also must recognize that our students will have to confront the world in their scientific careers, and in order to do that, they do need to be educated on exactly what the world teaches. In so doing, though, we must also be careful to not only educate them on the beliefs of the world, but ALSO how to CONFRONT those beliefs in a “rigorous scientific” manner. If our science students can’t speak to the worldly scientists in their language, then how can we ever be expected to reach the hearts of those people? But in teaching our students how to speak the language of the world’s scientists, we must also be careful to not teach them to THINK LIKE the world’s scientists. Here is where it seems that LSU as an institution is stumbling. In these documents, they reaffirm a commitment to a literal, recent, six-day creation (which, incidentally, precludes teaching any form of Theistic evolution as well, provided that they stand by their affirmation with action and not just words) as well as a “rigorous, scientific curriculum”. But in pursuing a “rigorous scientific curriculum,” they have left out any affirmation of commitment to guiding students safely through the pitfalls of evolutionary theory. It’s exactly this lack of affirmation that concerns me and most strongly reinforces my perception that LSU is not as committed to the spiritual education of our students and spiritual integrity of our institutions as they should be.
Like Shane, I too would be glad for some sort of solution to this problem other than release of the professors, but neither can I see any other viable option. If these professors desire to stand so firmly by their beliefs in evolution, then let them teach at a secular school. As Mark Mirek mentioned, it’s very easy for a teacher to ““cover” a prescribed curriculum contrary to [his] beliefs while clearly making [his] opinions known to [his] students.” Such teachers as these at LSU are nothing more than the “mixed multitude” in our midst striving to lead our students “back to Egypt.” Unless these teachers can demonstrate a genuine repentance from their evolutionist beliefs, and show it not only by openly teaching the short comings of evolutionary theory in their words and curriculum but also by the tone of their voices and body language as they teach (in other words, it must be a heart deep turning away from these follies), then they should be released from employment by our institutions.
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
4
November 14, 2009
Is the LSU Board unhappy with their biology department’s current curriculum? If a study and review of the curriculum must be done, there should be stated a reasonably short time frame in which to complete it. Have there been previous curriculum reviews (“embraced”) “responsibility for ongoing evaluation and assessment” by the Board? How will the Board ensure it will not fall short of its “commitment to the integrity of the University’s mission”. Might the resolution go beyond a clear statement of the Board’s commitment to “inspire, challenge, encourage and support the faculty” to include ‘promoting the development of faculty’s performance’ – and include evaluation of whether (the curriculum is) presented by the faculty in accordance with the University’s mission? As some readers have commented- it is possible for teachers to “cover the curriculum” yet presenting their personal beliefs as well as promoting opposing and contradicting theories. I agree that the need for accountability of those who are teachers is what seems to be left out of this well intentioned albeit “politically correct” resolution. An impression on the minds of students is developed by the tone and mode of the teaching. Students could reasonably be given opportunity to ‘evaluate’ their instructors (providing for anonymity if desired) thus giving teachers and the Board opportunity of considering that input. A conscientious teacher would want to be made aware of how they are coming across and modify their way of teaching if not perceived to be in harmony with the University’s mission, the church’s belief and a curriculum in accord with the Biblical model. This would would be a step toward promoting “a spirit of open inquiry and discussion in the ..classrooms and laboratories” and could be an integral part of the proposed “research project” to “study the spiritual development of Adventist students”. I wholeheartedly support LSU President Wisbey’s desire that “Our Board members and faculty take seriously their obligation to teach our students in a manner that develops a mature, enduring faith while thoroughly preparing them for careers in the sciences”.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
November 14, 2009
There is a positive start. It seems as if the trustees are reluctant to confront the evolutionists who clearly do not believe in a recent 6-day creation.
The pressure and vigilance must be maintained to ensure that teaching of a recent 6-day creation is the acceptable explanation of life and that evolution is to be taught as a competing and destructive theory that has wide acceptance in some circles.
We must try to get across the message that science can never fully prove anything and thus it is futile to use research to reconcile the two. As SDAs we must teach in our schools that there must be an element of faith for all uncertainty will never be removed.
The second letter is the most promising but there needs to be a decision about the actual professors and the president who are at the root of the rot.
If they are not censured, disciplined or fired, I fear evolution, as one poster said will still be taught as the acceptable view but done in different ways.
After all, a person convinced against his will is unconvinced still.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
5
November 14, 2009
While it seems that LSU has begrudgingly taken steps to appease the 6-day creationists which still form the bedrock of the SDA Church, it has not decided to actively limit the promotion of the modern evolutionary synthesis view of origins as the true story of origins within most of its science classrooms.
In other words, it appears that LSU will indeed maintain teachers like Gary Bradley who have publicly called literal 6-day creationists the “lunatic fringe” along with the statement that, “I am not OK with getting up in a science course and saying most science is b…s…”
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/09/01/evolution
The same thing is true of young LSU professor Lee Greer who is an ardent evolutionist and who actively teaches his students, in no uncertain terms, that life did indeed evolve on this planet in a Darwinian manner over the course of hundreds of millions of years of time. He does in fact explain to his students that the Genesis account is allegorical at best and is clearly contradictory and internally inconsistent. All one has to do is go and read the Power Point presentations by Greer and the other members of the biology team at LSU (listed on this website and on my own website) to understand what is actually being promoted by many of the LSU science staff.
These teachers simply aren’t going to change their views. So, what does it matter if LSU has classes that do in fact promote the SDA perspective on a literal creation week if LSU also maintains teachers like Bradley, Greer, and many others with similar views who are telling their students exactly the opposite is true, in no uncertain terms, in the very next room?
Is LSU really Ok with such cognitive dissonance? Is the SDA church at large Ok with the promotion of such dissonance within its own school system?
I certainly would not send my own son nor would I recommend any others who value the truth of a literal 6-day creation to send their children to such a cognitively dissonant and apparently confused “SDA” university.
Sean Pitman, M.D.
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
6
November 14, 2009
I obtained a four year degree in biology from Union College in 1978. When I was there, the teachers taught that creation by God was the correct way to understand the origin of life, but they also taught evolution so that we would understand what the rest of the world was thinking. They taught it correctly because they instructed us about the evidence that was available which sided with creation and also the very big problems with evolution. And, there are major problems with the theory of evolution. Just probability alone tells you that evolution is a dead end road. I remember that I sat down on my own and did some rough calculations concerning the probability factors and concluded that there is not enough time in the entire universe to allow for life to evolve as it has. Besides that, there is the fact that according to evolution, evolution is an upward path of progress. Yet strangely, according to the science of genetics, more and more errors are creeping into the genome, which leads in the exact opposite direction that evolution says we are headed. However, it matches well with what Ellen White tells us, which is that we are degenerating from the way man was when he was created.
Now, as I understand it, the instructors at La Sierra University are teaching theistic evolution, or as I understand this idea, it is that God started the process of evolution and guided the development over billions of years so that we arrive where we are today. This sounds to many like a good idea because it gets around the probability problems of the origin of life and development. But there are major problems with this. It implies that God is responsible for all the death and destruction of life that has supposedly gone on for billions of years ever since he supposedly started the process billions of years ago. This has to be the case because if he made life so that it slowly evolved, then both life and death have to have been his creation. There is no way around that fact. That contradicts the Bible because Jesus tells us that an enemy has created the situation here on earth today with the death and destruction that we see.
If God did not create life in 6 days of creation, then the story in Genesis is a fraud and God is a liar. Do we want to be teaching people that God is a liar? The instructors may claim that they are teaching no such thing, but this is the clear implication of teaching theistic evolution for any thinking student, and I am sure some of those students are doing some thinking. I do not see how at least some of them would be able to avoid getting this type of message from what is being taught.
But ultimately, one has to consider this thought that finally came to me one day when considering this question (before the issue at La Sierra University came to my attention):
If God is not powerful enough to have created life by command some 6,000 years or so ago and had to rely upon a process of guided evolution to get us where we are today, then he is not powerful enough to resurrect you from the grave at the end of this world’s history when Jesus comes again.
There is no way around this fact. Clearly, resurrection requires more power because at resurrection God has to put back into the body all the memories and character of the original person and then create life within the body so that it is original creation + the memories and character of the original person. Original creation is a process of creating the body and creating a mind that has basic knowledge and character and then adding life. This should be a simpler process than resurrection because after a lifetime, there are a lot of memories to be restored and there are a lot of nuances to the character that don’t exist with original creation such as was the case with Adam and Eve.
If he is not powerful enough to have done creation in 6 days, then ultimately there is no salvation, there is no resurrection, there is no need to keep the Sabbath, and ultimately, one can conclude that while God may be powerful, he obviously is limited and therefore perhaps is nothing more than a local galactic warlord, something perhaps akin to the leader of the empire in Star Wars. Why follow him?
Now, it is my impression from the documents of the board that this could be just another way to put off making the real decisions. Time will tell whether that is the case or not. It is also possible that it is a genuine attempt to find a path to fix the problem. I am sure they are concerned with accreditation issues and moving hastily could cause them problems with that. A slower path may yield good results and avoid these problems. It would seem prudent to me that this should be watched to see what is done and then judge the results from that. Meanwhile, I don’t believe that the effort to get the problem fixed should be abandoned. Continuing vigilance on this issue is required because without that, the whole issue may just be forgotten and nothing done in the end.
Academic freedom is important in any institution, including those of our colleges and universities, but that does have its limits because these institutions are church owned and operated. They have a mission to accomplish, one that state owned or even other private institutions do not share. That mission must be accomplished. When professors within our institutions are clearly working at cross purposes to that mission, something must be done about it. Of course, we don’t burn bad professors at the stake, but they certainly are free to seek employment elsewhere in places where their services will be wanted. Perhaps they should be encouraged to move on? I would prefer that they change what they are doing, but that is unlikely to happen. It is my thinking that these types of beliefs don’t change overnight and no amount of board action, statements, or pressure from anyone is likely to change their minds.
The theory of evolution as explained in the scientific literature has considerable power. I know because I read scientific literature from time to time and realize this from personal experience. I have found that being well grounded in the Bible prophecies has caused me to believe the Bible instead of the evolutionists, regardless of the evidence apparently favoring evolution. Do remember that most money for scientific research comes from the government, which funds these projects with the intent that any explanation of origins must be based on evolution. The reason the government does this is that it does not want to be accused of entangling itself with religion. When most of the money goes in that direction, why is it such a mystery that the evidence seems to support evolution? Fortunately, there are good scientists out there who have chosen to take a different path and they are making progress in understanding creationism. Their work, where well done (and not all of it has been well done), needs to be explained to our college students so that they know the evidence is not all on the side of evolution. In addition, perhaps there is more effort that can be made to somehow ground the students in the Bible more thoroughly than is presently being done so that they are better able to resist this undermining influence. Surely this would help some of them.
Personally, I hope that this situation is resolved amicably and that there is a change in what is being taught. Meanwhile, we must continue to watch events unfold and may have to urge further action before this is fixed. Don’t be surprised if that is necessary. It is hard to stop a runaway train like we have here.
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
4
November 14, 2009
After reading all three documents, I feel that the issue at hand has not been appropriately addressed. There should be an outright rescission of the teaching of evolution as a competing theory. There should be no competition to the teaching of the literal six-day creation of God.
It seems to be a lot of political double-talk, that on the surface seems to address the issue, but actually makes no commitment to address it in the manner in which it should be, and is ambiguous (at best) in affirming a position in support of the Creator.
Furthermore, what is the benefit of calling in worldly organizations to invalidate the teaching of evolution in our institutions, as they will simply advocate the false teachings of men. Why should we form a committee consisting of secular scientists to affirm Creation? Seems oxymoronic to me…
The spirit of open inquiry they call for simply allows for the acceptance of the false winds of doctrine and men. The academic integrity they also reference should not seek approval from the worldly accreditation system, but should seek approval from God on High. And, the only way that that can be done is on their knees seeking out His guidance and wisdom. James 1:5 says, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.”
1 Timothy 6:3-5 says, “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4) He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5) Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.”
Withdraw from seeking counsel and advice from non-believers and stand firm on the side of God.
In His name… Michael
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
6
November 14, 2009
@Alexander Carpenter:
You wrote:
There is no unity in fundamental diversity within an organization. This is a recipe for fragmented chaos, not unity within a viable organization of any kind which goes uniquely beyond the unified support of, for example, basic civil rights.
Does the SDA Church have anything else to stand for besides the basic truths of civil liberty which we already have in this great country of ours? Does the SDA understanding of the Gospel message really stall out at such a basis level of truth? – or is there more to offer in the Gospel message of hope concerning the nature of God, His Creative powers, His Universe, and His plans for a New Creation for this world and for us? – - which hopefully won’t take billions of years of “survival of the fittest” and its associated cruelty, suffering and death to achieve?
Sean Pitman, M.D.
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
6
November 14, 2009
I have been a SDA for some 50 years now and in all that time have never questioned the Spirit of Prophecy when she said that it was “six literal days that creation took place”! Isn’t this enough for any practicing SDA? Why is there a need for forums and discussion? Have we fallen so far from the pillars of our faith? It seems to me that these men are “ever learning but never coming to an understanding”. May God have mercy on their unbelief!
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
5
November 14, 2009
Last night after reading so much of this I sat down to write. This poem/song is so simple that many may not see it. School’s seem to need to be difficult to understand or it is not true education. But God’s education is not difficult. This is what came to me in the early hours of the Sabbath.
Praising You
Your love dear God is working here
Producing a new start,
We need to see tremendously
The Standards of Your heart.
Refrain
Bless us now this day with Thee
Lord please renew our way,
Help us to live and follow
Our Saviour everyday.
We see Thy precious law for us
No burden to our soul,
In love it came from our Maker
To bring peace not control.
Refrain
Bless us now this day with Thee
Lord please renew our way,
Help us to live and follow
Our Saviour everyday.
When You come that glorious day
To take us home with You,
We pray that we Your Word have kept
Your Power we pursue.
Refrain
Bless us now this day with Thee
Lord please renew our way,
Help us to live and follow
Our Saviour everyday.
You died upon the cross that all
Will then spend forever,
Praising You our dear Lord
In this we endeavour.
Refrain
Bless us now this day with Thee
Lord please renew our way,
Help us to live and follow
Our Saviour everyday.
m.d.glass
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
November 14, 2009
I completely agree. Simply adding another class to the student workload doesn’t fix the classes that caused all the ruckus to begin with. No additional classes would be needed if the original problem were actually tackled and solved – i.e., the promotion of the modern synthesis version of the theory of evolution as the actual truth by many if not all of LSU’s science professors.
Evidently, these same professors are going to be retained by LSU and they are going to keep teaching the gospel truth of Darwinism and the lunacy of a literal 6-day creation week – just as they always have. How is the addition of more classes going to solve this problem?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
4
November 14, 2009
@Sean Pitman, M.D.:
You can add my name to that.
Arthur Chadwick, Ph.D.
Southwestern Adventist University
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
4
November 14, 2009
The LSU board proposes that “scientists and administrators in Adventist higher education work together with Church leadership” to form a study group for the purpose of proposing “ a college curriculum fulfilling the General Conference Executive Committee’s call for a scientifically rigorous affirmation of a literal recent six day creation”.
This is an appeal for “another body” – a cross functional denominational body, to address the curriculum problem rather than appointing LSU staff to solve the problem.
In American football parlance – they “punted the ball”. Possibly because they knew that LSU is not in leadership in that area of study today and that no such solution was likely in the near future to be coming from LSU. Also the union and university adminstrators appear to be saying that only a hard and fast “we are telling you what science curriculum to teach” model coming from denominational leadership is the only real solution to their lack of action problem.
So although this does not specifically propose any immediate change in curriculum at La Sierra, nor does it admit to any problems at LSU – nor does it require that La Sierra staff specifically even be involved in the proposed study group nor does it require that LSU implement the proposed curriculum in any specified time frame, nor does it propose that LSU see if the more creationist-friendly SDA universities have this in place today such that they could use it – it hopefully is possibly implying that LSU would one day adopt said curriculum.
It also appears to admit that LSU does not have that curriculum in place today.
In the “La Sierra Biology faculty have faith..” section what is notably missing is the same language used for the study group “faith in a literal, recent six day creation”. Thus in a kind of “coded language” style the document is admitting to a problem.
How “instructive” that it comes out in this fashion.
In today’s Sabbath School lesson Korah’s story is told where it is pointed out that Korah has made it appear that Moses has mistreated the entire congregation by strictly reporting what the Lord has said – instead of what the people were inclined to believe in their own favor. How interesting that we sometimes get the response that 3SG 90-91 is another case of the “prophet being wrong” and opposing what the people at some of our teaching institutions are “are inclined to believe in their own favor” regarding the doctrine of origins. How fascinating that this latest version struggles to avoid the clear “SIX days you shall labor… for in SIX DAYS the Lord made…” teaching so central to this denomination.
In Christ,
Bob
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
5
November 14, 2009
I am glad the board affirmed the 6 day creation clearly, though the biology department has clearly not changed their position. I am confused why political correctness would play a role in educating the youth in the faculty “with varying opinions” on the matter. Adventist education is not a place for varying opinions on basic doctrinal points such as Sabbath and Creation. It is a place for hiring professors that have a firm grasp of scripture as well as their discipline, not just a hiring pool for public education; therefore you hire the most educated or qualified, you hire the most educated and spiritually qualified- though I know that went out the door decades ago.
I am sad to see that even evangelicals support creation better than we do. Here, on the anniversary of Darwin’s book, Kirk Cameron and his ministry have released origin of species with a creation and gospel forward, may God help our arrogance: http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=383
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
3
November 14, 2009
I am sad to see that even evangelicals support creation better than we do. Here, on the anniversary of Darwin’s book, Kirk Cameron and his ministry have released origin of species with a creation and gospel forward, may God help our arrogance: http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=383
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
November 14, 2009
The Adventist Theological Society’s quarterly publication “Perspective Digest” has been keeping a pro-creation creation-vs-evolution section going for several years now. This current quarter also has a feature article on “Ellen White and Evolution” by Dr Frank Hasel that is very well written.
Also the Adventist Review has an article out on “Intelligent Design”.
http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2009-1509&page=18
So “We” the Seventh-day Adventist church – do have some good things going in favor of the Bible doctrine on origins — even if some of our teaching institutions flounder in that area.
in Christ,
Bob
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
2
November 14, 2009
While I agree with many of the other posters who look at the statements of the LSU Board as positive and at least a partial victory for the goals set forth by the Educate Truth forum. However, I too am concerned with the seemingly open-ended review called for before any changes are made in the current LSU curriculum. What happens in the meanwhile? Are the biology professors in question allowed to continue teaching their non-Biblical views of Theistic Evolution? Would it not have been more appropriate for the Board to have stipulated that during the time it takes for this new committee to be formed, complete its study of the evidence, and make a recommendation as to how Creation vs. Evolution should be taught at LSU as well as other Adventist colleges and universities, that the LSU professors would be required to “cease and desist” from their current teaching and return to the belief system so recently adopted by the SDA GC?
Obviously, this is only the opening salvo and the conservative base of Seventh-day Adventists must not let up on the pressure being applied but must, in fact, increase that pressure until the necessary changes are made so that God’s fiat creation is recognized and upheld by all science professors, not only at LSU, but throughout the Adventist college/university network.
In my opinion, work should begin RIGHT NOW on making certain that this issue is placed very high on the agenda on next year’s GC session(s) in Atlanta.
I agree whole-heartedly that this is truly “A Hiil to Die On.”
May God continue to bless and ordain as this most important issue is resolved to give Him glory.
In His love,
Byron Comp
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
7
November 14, 2009
I said “nor does it require that La Sierra staff specifically even be involved in the proposed study group ” — after reading the first document. However I see that the board actions do require that “two” LSU science faculty members be involved, so at least they would have some actual investment in the effort — should all others agree to form it on behalf of LSU.
And I would have to say that in all the discussions so far — no one as hinted that there are not even “two” science faculy at LSU that support the Bible doctrine on origins. So I am still confident that LSU could find two to participate in the study group.
in Christ,
Bob
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
4 
7
November 14, 2009
I totally agree with the observations thus made of these documents published by the LSU Board of Trustees!
There have been recent articles published bemoaning the fact that although there is an increasing SDA church membership there is a decreasing support for SDA education. There are studies/committees appointed to study why and how this “problem” can be rectified.
My husband and I would support Adventist education whole heartedly if we could be assured that the experience our children received could be one that prepared them to be trusted citizens in the government of heaven!
Of interest, we note that a K-8 public school is planning to use the Apologia Science series, by Dr. Jay Wile, for its science curriculum next school year! The institutions of this world will sooner leave the institutions of the church behind in matters of promoting truth filled science!
Yet we will keep praying and seeking to lift up the standard of righteousness in our local congregations that we be not partakers of this Omega of Apostacy; these evolutionary theories of science so-called being taught in our schools goes right along with the “new” worship styles/music being advocated in many of our congregations. May our eyes, hearts, understanding be enlightened by God’s truth! We have no excuse!
God bless His people on His Sabbath Day!
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
9
November 14, 2009
I want to thank you all for your time in sharing your thoughts and ideas in regards to these on going issues that we are facing especially our children who will be taking up the truth that we have been upholding since the creation of adventism.
It is saddening to have these issues in our higher education level. Also, the devil must be happy to see Adventist involve in this issue at this time where we should be focusing more on teaching truth around the world.
My main concern at this time is that we should not only focus on the LSU School Board but, ask the General Conference to take action so that the issue can be solved as soon as possible.
We have more and better work to take care for Jesus is coming soon. The devil is bringing this small issue just to detour us from our commission to the world.
Moreover, I strongly believe that the issue we are sharing today is just a tip of the ice burg, it is only revealing how much the SDA theology have detoured from the truth. As we can read from the letter that they are using Mrs. White’s writing only to meet their theory or point of views and to show us that they still believe in her writings yet they do no live it.
The teachings in the SDA today are leaning towards Sunday keeping Christian theology for most of our Pastor attended their schools and university and came out with their teachings. I have approached two of my church pastors whom I have not heard teaching or using Mrs. Whites book but books from Rick Warren, Billy Graham, and other non SDA speakers asking them why, their answers that they were told that they should not be promoting her writing in the public. What a shame to all SDA’s who have the same ideas as these pastors.
It is sad to say that the issue at LSU need to be taken care of as soon as possible so the whole SDA theology need to be overhauled and be cleansed from any false theory that have been nurturing, for we are all accountable to the world with the 3 angels message.
May God bless you all
http://www.7thday3angels.fathweb.com
Sailasa Nailava
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
5
November 14, 2009
I want to add my voice in expressing appreciation to Shane and all who have worked on this Website to bring the issue to the forefront. Thank you!
I am initially encouraged by the Board’s statements. I want to believe a sincere effort will be made to develop a curriculum that will indeed uphold the great foundations of our faith. I have read some hopeful comments, and I have read some that fear or predict no positive change will be made. Regarding the latter prospect, that may be the case. But let us not lose faith in the power of God to change hearts. The issue has been clearly put forth and the message seems to have been clearly received by the LSU Board.
Remember God’s instruction to Ezekiel concerning the house of Israel: “Son of man, go to the house of Israel and speak with My words to them. For you are not being sent to a people of unintelligible speech or difficult language, but to the house of Israel . . . to them who should listen to you; yet”–God very tellingly informs Ezekiel–”the house of Israel will not be willing to listen to you, since they are not willing to listen to Me.”
So God sends messages even when He knows the outcome! In this present situation there will be a shaking; some will be shaken out, and there may be many who will listen and be set on a right course. As was suggested by another responder, I plan, and urge every interested person, to indeed make this a matter of earnest prayer for the best possible outcome. Whatever the outcome, the positive efforts represented by this website have not been in vain. Let us trust in the God of truth, who overrules all for good in working out the counsels of His own will.
Sandi
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
November 14, 2009
@Steve Severance: Please Steve, — I can appreciate where you are coming from, but let’s take LSU off the table for a minute – and ask this question: When Satan places his [agents] in our churches or institutions – and he surely does, along with his angels, do you think for a minute they will be intellectually honest enough to leave on their own?? Of course not – the reason they are there is to win their battle. No, no, WE have to make the decisions as to whether they stay or go. And unless and until we decide to do this, as we always should, without waver, then they have won the battle. Period, case closed.
Larry
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
November 14, 2009
@Sean Pitman, M.D.: May God bless you Sean for standing and speaking up so clearly and concisely!
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
2
November 14, 2009
“While it seems that LSU has begrudgingly taken steps to appease the 6-day creationists which still form the bedrock of the SDA Church, it has not decided to actively limit the promotion of the modern evolutionary synthesis view of origins as the true story of origins within most of its science classrooms…
These teachers simply aren’t going to change their views. So, what does it matter if LSU has classes that do in fact promote the SDA perspective on a literal creation week if LSU also maintains teachers like Bradley, Greer, and many others with similar views who are telling their students exactly the opposite is true, in no uncertain terms, in the very next room?…”
What he said.
What a joke, more talk, talk, talk. As in maybe if we talk about it long enough they will tire and go away. Works in Washington, why not here?? It is now up to us…will we let them wear us down?
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
2
November 14, 2009
What it will take for SDA leaders to realize that the unspecific statement of the Fundamental Belief #6 has created much of this controversy? It is unfortunate that the same type of statement is coming from key persons involved in the LSU controversy. One of these statements reads: “Each faculty member understands the important responsibility to facilitate broad education in biology in ways that embrace the Adventist perspective of God as the Creator of all things.”
It is not only crucial that “each faculty member understand” its importance, but that every, and each one of them assume a COMMITMENT to provide “broad biology education” that is in conformity with the 2004 statement (Point #4) voted by the General Conference Executive Committee, which is much more specific and in harmony with the biblical view of creation.
We are living in the difficult times on which the Word of God is being challenged more than ever. Today we need genuine thinkers more than ever, but we need thinkers that can reflect the character of Christ, and defend His Word as it is. We must remember that to prepare any other kind of thinkers we don’t need a SDA institution, for any other secular institution is capable enough of doing it.
Blessings to all.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
2
November 14, 2009
While this is certainly a large step in the right direction, I would prefer more specifics from the professors who have been teaching evolution.
Otherwise we risk having professors that say they believe in the SDA doctrines but do not in reality.
I personally know of 2 history professors at an SDA institution who say that they believe in our doctrines but at the same time will say that Ellen White was not inspired and plagiarized. We also have had pastors who baptized people who never heard of Ellen White, pastors who perform marriages for twice and thrice divorced individuals, and had a pastor who baptized people wearing jewelry. None of these individuals felt that they were in contradiction of SDA beliefs or the Bible.
In order to keep out that destructive influences, we need to be very specific with prospective teachers, pastors, etc. It is not enough to just ask if they believe in the SDA beliefs. Those in a position to hire these persons must be so clear and concise that candidates cannot rationalize away the truth.
To Our Brother Shane: Thank you for keeping us all informed, so that we could join with you in this crusade.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
4
November 14, 2009
We live in a time where we cannot afford to sit on the fence about our beliefs. I personally have grown weary of “Adventist” that want to take over our churches and turn them into some worldly show place on Sabbath, where it is hard to find anything holly about the service. These same people are often educators in our institutions that use the class room for their own political forum and are seemingly ashamed of our beliefs.
My daughter went one year to an Adventist college and suffered through this very thing of which I speak, only to not return for another year. It seems when a professor gets a hold of an opposing idea, there is no room for another opinion. Nor would anyone want to open that can of worms in a classroom. It has swept across the nation at many of our schools and there is an agenda being met, because too many have no courage to speak against them.
I thank you Shane for your efforts and pray that you keep after it. This is a long way from being settled. They use Ellen White to cover the truth of their intention which is to keep evolution as well. Shame on them. Sister White is correct in saying we should teach our children to think for themselves; OK they get the evolution story from everywhere else in the media and the world!! Where will they get God’s doctrine? except in our schools? Have mercy!!!
How can they possibly think that is a good argument and believe me that was an attempt to argue.
I feel the tone is they are not serious in their Faith and hope with some flowery words eventually you will go away.
Well, that was all pretty blunt, but necessary.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
2
November 14, 2009
I am very disturbed by the boards comments. It seems like alot of simple avoiding clear Scriptures. Why do we need more ad hoc meetings to waste alot of money and time?? Those men are NOT SDA’s, clearly by their teachings and they go against out beliefs as SDA’s. Its very simple to this simple minded person, that if they do not teach as we believe, they they should NOT be paid from God’s tithe! They should be fired and be put either under censure or taken off of the books of the SDA Church. I will not support our learning institutions that go against what the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy teaches. (that includes most of our schools now). She clearly says that competitive sports is wrong, yet we have them in most of our schools. God forbid!!! And we wonder why our schools are going downhill? Get back to God and He will keep our schools going the right direction.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
3
November 14, 2009
Dear Kirk Weedman:
I cannot find your personal e-mail address for the purpose of writing to you, as you requested. Please write to mine and we can get in touch.
God bless!
Pastor Kevin
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
November 14, 2009
So once again, the problem comes down to our view of Biblical inspiration/authority…Does culture and context have a place in evaluating and applying scripture? What about the NT admonitions regarding women speaking in public worship and how to treat slaves? We don’t take these verses without evaluating their context? Were the verses in Genesis meant to be a scientific treatise? No, we must look at context once again. The Sabbath doesn’t rise or fall only on a literal 7 day creation and young earth chronology.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
3 
11
November 14, 2009
One of those “good things” is in lower level education. The grades 1 – 8 science books produced by the church and used in our schools are seriously outdated. A new secular series had already been adopted for grades 1- 4 that were pretty creation-evolution neutral. A series for the upper grades was chosen, but at the final NAD committee meeting it was decided that, in spite of the financial cost, our own science series with a strong creation foundation was an absolute necessity. That is the Holy Spirit at work.
In two years we will have that series. It will be top of the line in quality and grounded in truth.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
November 14, 2009
What an outrage!!! Nothing has changed, those three documents say nothing about the true issue. The Biology Department at LSU has been left in place causing more confusion then before.
A “Study Group”, why? What is there to study? Or is this a ploy to make Creationism questionable in the SDA education system? What other reason is there? The other SDA schools are not having this type of problems so why spread this evil debate farther.
I plea with you not to accept this ploy. The time for debate is over. Now is the time to hold LSU’s feet closer to the fire and demand a straight answer to a simple question, are you or aren’t you going to address the actions of the Biology Department at LSU?
The Board’s action clearly shows the Board thinks there is an issue to debate, what other reason can there be to have a ‘Study Group’.
I pray that the other schools will boycott this ‘Study Group’ for the simple reason there is nothing to talk about.
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
16
November 14, 2009
Genesis 1 – Genesis 2:2 tells the story of how God created this world in 6 days and rested on the 7th day. This is the fundamental belief of the Seventh Day Adventist Church and most Christian denominations, but the SDA Church is largest group that keeps the seventh day as the Sabbath day of rest. The rest of Genesis 2 tells the creation in story simple telling fashion and in no way should we say that it contradict the Genesis 1-2:2,
La Sierra University is private university owned, run and funded by the Seventh Day Adventist organization and its members, therefore the professors/teachers running the classes there should abide by the most fundamental, basic biblical belief of the SDA church. The same lessons that we teach our children at our homes and churches should be applied in all our schools too.
Personally I do not want to be the person responsible for misleading others about our God, His Mighty Powers to create and His Love for us undeserving mankind. The God who sent His Son Jesus to die for our sins and is coming back to take us to Heaven soon.
May God Bless and Keep us all in His Fold.
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
11