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
Leave a Reply
November 14, 2009
@Byron Comp:
Indeed — those were the primary questions to be addressed by the board and they are the precise questions completely ignored by that Board Action statement.
One thing to keep in mind is that this is a Seventh-day Adventist institution that markets primarily to Seventh-day Adventist parents and students. They never had the option of saying “we are not really Adventist in our doctrine so we teach evolution as we please”.
Given that that was not really an option — it appears they came up with the next best (or guess I should say “next worst”) thing.
Fundamentally – it appears that “some administrators” cannot be trusted to successfully manage the quality of their own hiring practices. They are too prone to hiring people that are “educators first — and Seventh-day Adventist second”. We can all fully appreciate the fact that public universities would choose that model — but we had prayed that our own univeristy administrators would know better. (The good news is that many of them do know better than to do that – and they are able to hire quality staff fully informed as to “WHY” we have “Adventist eductation” instead of simply sending all of our students to public schools for an “education first” experience that has either no value for God one way or the other — or is in fact hostile to the idea of Christianity.)
I heard someone in church today talk about the fact that theiir family priority was God first, then Family, then business (where “business” for students is education). My local church is now engaged in an evangelistic series reaching out to non-SDAs and fellow church members with a reminder of what “God first” actually means when it comes to all 28 Fundamental Beliefs. As you can guess – we start out with the subject of “Who is the Creator” and “What did He create” and “What details did He provide about how He did it”.
Basic concepts easily mastered by any honest sincere Bible student.
in Christ,
Bob
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
14
November 14, 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.”
Pastor Paulson’s statement makes a lot of sense and gets to the heart of the problem. After all the time and effort spent by Shane and those of us who written letters, etc., we cannot allow this to be swept under the rug with statements that when analyzed really say so little. And I agree with Ariel Roth, whom I once knew in grad school and have his current book, about the fact that we do *not* need another study. That’s a way the University can stall and not take the required action right now maybe hoping we will all forget it.
This matter of diversity, as Carpenter depicts it, is not supportable as diversity of beliefs on matters of settled faith in the SDA church cannot be left to those would adulterate and destroy them. Hart of Loma Linda has an article in the Review promoting SDA Christian education. If schools are teaching doctrinal error and promoting such error thru certain teachers and professors why should parents sacrifice to send them to institutions where their faith will be compromised.
Reminder: Real names are required in order to comment.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
12
November 14, 2009
In the following, I will address their statements one piece at a time.
It is good to know they recognize where the focus of the issue currently resides. However, this statement does not specify what the institution’s “foundational commitments” are, nor whether or not these agree with “Church’s official doctrine of creation.”
In the following list, do notice the order in which the points are presented.
Am I the only one to notice that the University has here put “supporting the university’s faculty” and “a spirit of open inquiry and discussion” ahead of an affirmation of Adventist beliefs? And in that statement block regarding those beliefs, they quote Mrs. White to say that we should be “thinkers” (i.e. “open minded”) rather than to quote one of her many statements regarding Creation. Are they trying to tell us that they are more “open minded” about science, and that the rest of us need to come up to speed?
So their scientists are looking for a chance to persuade church administrators to their side? It looks as though they are making full advantage of this window of opportunity.
I suppose they hope to show their strength of numbers through another ValueGenesis-type survey. If this is not their intent, I still fail of seeing how another ValueGenesis-style approach (which by the way should involve a few years of delay in completing) will solve the current issues.
Does this imply that those who believe in six literal days of creation have not a “mature, enduring faith,” one which would be “thoroughly preparing them for careers in the sciences?” The omissions here speak voluminously. There is no mention of creation, nor of creation science.
The reference to “relevant doctrinal positions” is an excellent example of doublespeak. It could mean two opposite things here. I wish to know which of them is intended. Is this: 1) a reference to belief in Genesis 1, or 2) an implication that not all doctrinal positions are relevant?
The faculty in the science department have spoken similarly all along. There is nothing new here. They claim to be theists. They may, however, yet believe that God created all matter, which then formed the basis of the “big bang.” This statement is purposefully vague, and the vagueness is unforgivable under these circumstances. Here and now is a time for clarity, which they are not offering.
Once again, this is more vagueness. This statement does not tell us one whit about the university’s true priorities, nor what “the important issues of faith and science” are considered to be in their estimation.
I would like to hope that these ambiguous statements do not imply what they could imply about the university continuing to do what it has been in the past–teach evolution as “the single unifying explanation of the living world, and nothing makes much, if any, sense outside of this unifying theory.”
Here’s still waiting for something sensible to come from LSU’s board.
Erik
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
15
November 14, 2009
As with any document, these documents are subject to interpretation. It would not be expected for anyone or any institution to become perfect in a moment. However, the general flavor of these documents seems to be one of affirming Adventist beliefs and teaching these in the university. Because any document can allow for wiggle room and because not all policies are perfectly-followed in any institution, at this point it will be possible for LSU to either become highly & fully supportive of Adventist beliefs or to become more subtle in teaching deception. We must all continue to pray for our leaders, including those at LSU, because intercessory prayer works. We all needs God’s help, especially those who are under greater attack because of their positions of responsibility.
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
6
November 15, 2009
I believe good things have happened with the recent LSU Board meetings. Hopefully, all this can be put behind us now.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
21
November 15, 2009
Can we “cut to the chase”? The authority of the Bible as the ultimate source of truth is what’s under attack here. Which goes hand in hand with what will separate the saved from the lost prior to the return of Jesus. Jesus is coming soon, and “what can be shaken, will be shaken”. Only an absolute commitment to and adherence to the Word of God will enable God’s true followers to make it through to the end. Folks this is the issue that will draw the line in the sand. Does God’s Word have authority over our lives or not?
If the Bible is to be believed – God Himself is it’s Author. And He makes the following claims in His Word:
“To whom then will you liken Me. Or to whom shall I be equal?”, says the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high, and see who has created these things. Who brings out their host by number; He calls them all by name, by the greatness of His might, and the strength of His power; not one is missing.” Isa 40:25-27
“Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out. Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it … I am the Lord, that is my name; and My glory I will not give to another … Behold, the former things have come to pass, And new things I declare; Before they spring forth I tell you of them” From Isa 42:5, 8,9
“Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, And He who formed you in the womb; I am the Lord, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone. Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself” Isa 44:24
“I am the Lord, and there is no other; There is no God beside Me … I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and cause calamity; I, the Lord do all these things.” Isa 45:6,7
“I have made the earth, and created man on it. I — My hands — stretched out the heavens; and all their host I have commanded.” Isa 45:12
How can anyone who professes to be a Seventh-day Adventist read those texts and try to rob God of His glory? Re-read them. Is God a liar?
To those who are at war with the teachings of the Bible, I pass on the following message from the Lord:
“Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself; the word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, And shall not return, That to Me every knee will bow, Every tongue will confess”. Isa 45:22,23
To those who honor God with me, let us join in with the angels who bow before the throne and say, “You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created”. Rev 4:15
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
11
November 15, 2009
I think it sounds like a very successful LSU Board Meeting. I pray the Holy Spirit led and we can all move forward with the Lord.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
20
November 15, 2009
The comments so far are most fascinating. No one has suggested how you would go about teaching a “scientifically rigorous” basis for a recent, six-day creation. It’s as if you think that there is something obvious that the professors are not willing to teach. There is not one Seventh-day Adventist who can state clearly how it can be done. That’s why the Board has formed a study group.
What would you teach students about ice cores, the ocean sediments, the massive lava flows, the formation of limestone, the ice ages, the bristle cone pines, the meteor impact craters, and continental drift? Please, go read about these topics and then try to suggest what you would teach.
Do you think that there were Board members in that meeting who jumped up a presented a curriculum that would set everything straight and then, somehow, just couldn’t get enough votes for their proposal? Give me a break. Almost all scientific evidence shows that the earth and the life on it are very old. There is some scientific evidence that does not fit the predominant scientific models, but there is no convincing evidence for a recent creation. (If you doubt me, find some evidence and then present it.)
That’s the problem. We can poke a few holes in the prevailing scientific theories, but I have not heard from anyone who can propose a scientific model for a short history of the earth and its life. You should give a try before you complain about what the Board has done.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
24
November 15, 2009
Nothing substantial regarding if they still support and teach truths from the bible is shared . Any entity like ours may always share in writing what we believe but the issue is “are we still practising it?”
Furthermore, when I read what they quoted from Education page 17, it makes you believe that we should encourage independent thinking from our youth (which there’s no doubt they are full of this type of thinking already): yes, it may be healthy, to a certain degree but not to the point of challenging God’s word! In fact, this statement of Sister White has nothing to do with God’s word nor any of His counsel. If you continue on reading from page 17, it shares this, “It is the work of true education…to train the youth to be thinkers, and not mere reflectors of OTHER MEN’S THOUGHT. The issue is not about any man’s thought but what is at stake here is God’s word on creation. It still continues, “Instead of confining their study to that which men have said or written, let students be directed to the SOURCES OF TRUTH,… And what is truth? The bible says that “…I am the TRUTH, the Way and the Life…(John 14:6)” The best source to find truth and which we can only trust, is of course, the BIBLE! In fact, 2 Timothy 3:16 describes the authenticity of the bible, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Again, the bible clearly shows that it is not composed and written by men’s thoughts: 2Peter 1:20,21 share, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture IS OF ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake AS THEY WERE MOVED BY THE HOLY GHOST.” Let us continue to pray and hope that the school board will be more transparent and simple in the way they deal with their science teachers.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
8
November 15, 2009
I am very disappointed with the end results of this board meeting. It seems like the political path was followed to try and minimize and calm both sides. Another study is not needed, in my opinion. And an outlined method of teaching creation and evolution is not needed. Since both sides are un-falsifiable, both sides require faith in areas that are not clear. When I was in college, I took all the courses I could in evolution and creation science, and I believe I was brought up to date in evolutionary thinking, as well as where creation science was in proving their theories. There are always going to be unexplained areas that we just have to “put on the shelf” until further light comes to us, or until we reach the kingdom. This in no way means that I didn’t recieve a solid scientific education in biology. On the contrary, when problems with both sides were brought up, I was taught I needed to fall back on the biblical premise and wait for further information to be revealed.
So whats so hard to teach in this way?
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
10
November 15, 2009
The bottom line is that I see no evidence of action against the teachers that are promoting evolution over creation. Do you think they have changed their minds? I don’t. As long as these teachers are allowed to teach in our schools the problem still exists and will get worse as the teachers become more deceptive in the methods they use to sway the minds of our students.
(Quote)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
11
November 15, 2009
A Christian response would be to accept what our Christian brethren have stated in their decision. We pray that they do in fact intend to teach what we believe as a people which is simple Bible truth. The trustees are responsible for what happens next. If we find that things remain the same in the Biology department at La Sierra, I will be the first to call for the resignation of the whole board, unless any on the board join in the call for these resignations. They may stay as they join the battle against evil. And further, if any on the board are ordained ministers in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, we need to call for their credentials to be removed if they continue to support the teaching of evolution at La Sierra.
There is no need to debate what I mean. The Seventh-day Adventist Church remains in a Laodicean condition. This is applicable to many ordained ministers and especially to those who teach and administrate at our institutions of “higher” education. It appears that the board is going to make a change, but if they do not immediately take control of the situation and bring the institution they are responsible for in harmony with Scripture in regards to the teaching of creation then those in the church who understand the situation need to continue calling for reform at La Sierra. This reform would then begin with a new board and a new president. There is a line drawn in the sand. Those who are on the Lord’s side need to stand on the Lord’s side. All who refuse to move on His side of the line need to removed from any positions of sacred trust they may now hold. This is not a complicated issue. Only rebels and cowards will refuse to side with Christ on this issue.
There will be revival and reformation in the church. This is God’s church and no man or men will stand in the way of this change. It will take place when enough church members are truly converted. How long will we continue to allow sin and suffering in this world? It all rests upon our heads. Jesus ought to have come in 1888, but He did not for a reason. That reason still exists. Let us each search our own hearts that we might better understand our relationship with our Lord, Jesus Christ. He is seeking to reveal Himself in each of us. When He is sanctified in us before the eyes of the world, then the world will know there is a God. By beholding the loveliness of Jesus, we shall become changed into His image from glory to glory.
In our desire to maintain the truth, let us manifest His character as we deal with the erring. Who knows, He may be working in the hearts of some who sit on the La Sierra board. Let us pray this is the case.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
5
November 15, 2009
Shane Hilde’s summary and commentary is encouraging. Especially this statement, “I have it on good authority that the Board is very aware of the situation and will not let what has been going on continue much longer.” One has to ask the question though,’Why did the board allow this to go on for so long to begin with?’ And, ‘What will they do to fix the problem if it does continue longer?’
It is very difficult not to have a cynical view after reading the Biology department’s gross generality, “The La Sierra Biology faculty have faith that God is their Creator and Sustainer,” said James Wilson, Ph.D., department chair. “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.” This only serves as confirmatory evidence of this groups culpability.
I have to echo Sean Pittman’s statement that, ‘These teachers simply aren’t going to change their views.’ and Mark Mirek’s statement that, ‘Without clear accountability from professors this problem will continue to fester.’
I also echo Shane Hilde’s statement that, ‘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.’
Are there really that few qualified Adventist Biology Professors out there?
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
10
November 15, 2009
It is without question that this ends nothing and this community will continue to hold the LSU’s collective “feet to the fire.” We shall see where this goes.
Carl – please see Dr. Veith for a rationale on how to teach origins by creation.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
November 15, 2009
My posts don’t appear to be getting to the server today — will see if this one makes it.
@Victor Marshall:
My interest would be in hearing any news at all along the lines of the statement above “I have it on good authority that the Board is aware of the situation and will not let what has been going on continue…”.
That is a very good and hopeful statement – do we have any publically available information that would help us understand any of the details behind that? Will board member post here or somewhere and admit that they see a problem to be corrected – and that corrective steps can be taken by LSU itself without waiting for the proposed study group of the future to come into being and complete it’s work?
in Christ,
Bob
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
2 
7
November 15, 2009
Above all the fray, at least one truth remains, “A soft answer turneth away wrath.” No one disapproves more of what has happened at La Sierra (and at many of our schools) than I do. My faith was personally affected as a young college student. But God was bigger than my confusion and faithful to guide me through it.
Those of us who seek to affect change had better not forget the underlying principles and characteristics that make God who He is: loving, long suffering, slow to anger, appealing to reason and not anxious to crush those who persecute Him or disagree with Him.
Judgment will come—from God, not from us—but it has not come yet. In the meantime, we would do well to work patiently with each other through this and every issue. That is our greatest testimony to truth.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
11
November 16, 2009
@Carl says::
I believe this is a perfect illustration of the thinking that went into that Board Action – we should not ignore it.
This thinking is precisely why a pro-evolution LSU administration would so readily propose that “somebody else” come up with an Adventist science curriculum that supports a recent 6 day creation week – because in the minds of these evolutionists (as in the mind of Richard Dawkins) there is in fact “no such thing” as a scientifically rigorous curriculum that supports the Bible doctrine on origins.
hint: One LSU option here is that the two science professors LSU intends to provide in that effort suggested for “somebody else” may well be sent there with the intent of making sure everyone else on that committee knows that there is “no such thing”.
In this board action LSU has found “air cover” for continuing down their present course — awaiting for a “proposed committee” to gain time resources funding and authority “by somebody else” – before they would ever to cease and desist their “sacrifice all for evolutionism” policy in place today. And their back-up hope on this is that since there is “no such thing” as a “scientifically rigorous science curriculum supporting a recent, literal 6 day creation week” whatever effort might be put into the non-existent committee – would be all for naught and might even result in a conclusion allowing all SDA science programs to embrace evolutionism since the Bible facts on the origin of life are not “scientifically rigorous”.
Notice that when it comes to evolutionism — a “by faith alone” position will do (as Collin Patterson pointed out). But when it comes to Bible creation — then it must be “on video and reproducible in the lab”.
All very instructive for the unbiased objective reader.
in Christ,
Bob
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
11
November 16, 2009
I think what is really being put forward is that the “professors” are beign allowed to carry on business as usual and in the mean to also buying them time to look for new jobs as well. You see the issue is they dont want to FIRE these people! So they are looking for the greater council to lay down the curriculium (sp?) so that they will force these people to either at that point resign because “their” views are being forced out and they HAVE to teach the way we say or they just go through the motions and follow through.
The real problem is 2 fold… These people are hateful towards the truth Jude 4 lays these people out specifically as creeping in unwares to us. Now is the time to take the council of Paul to the elders of Ephesus in Acts 20 and get these wolves out. If the ball is on the court of our round table council they are delegating this to then we need to now step up and put petition to them to start NOW and not let this thing drag out for a couple years “putting” together research and whatever! Christian High school has if other colleges we have teach creation vs. evolution correctly then they need to get the good stuff thats being taught and say “hey teach this or quit” Period!
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
8
November 16, 2009
@Carl:
What would you teach students about ice cores, the ocean sediments, the massive lava flows, the formation of limestone, the ice ages, the bristle cone pines, the meteor impact craters, and continental drift? Please, go read about these topics and then try to suggest what you would teach.
Perhaps you’d better do a little bit more reading yourself?
Regarding:
Ice Core Dating/Ice Ages:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/ancientice.html
Ocean Sediments:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/milankovitch.html
Bristlecone Pines:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html#Tree
Lave Flows:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Paraconformities
Limestone Formation:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Lithification%20Rates
Continenetal Drift:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Continental%20Drift
Meteor Impact Craters:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Meteorites
Perhaps you’d better do a little bit more reading yourself?
But, beyond this, it really doesn’t matter if you agree with the arguments for or against the SDA Church’s position on origin. What matters is that the SDA Church has every right to take on whatever position it wants. The problem here is with those who would think to demand a paycheck from the SDA Church while thinking to go about publicly undermining the stated fundamental position of their employer…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
11
November 16, 2009
You forgot two of my favorite texts about God as Creator…
Psalm 33: 6 & 9 “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by the breath of His mouth.(v.6) For He spake, and it was done; He commanded and it stood fast.” (v.9)
Sounds a lot like Genesis 1 doesn’t it?
Also, the three angel’s messages of Revelation 14; with the first angel saying, “…and worship Him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water”(v.6)…points/calls us right back to the creation story of Genesis. (it is part of the angel’s loud voice…)
And you know, truthfully, I don’t believe He even HAD to speak…He did that for us, and the watching angels…it proved right there, Who had the power (and it wasn’t Lucifer)…in fact, I believe God could have THOUGHT creation into existence in a millisecond. He did it this way (taking 6 24hour days, for us…so we could be positive WHO was the Creator God. That being Jesus on top of it…wonder what LSU thinks of Jesus as Creator?
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
6
November 16, 2009
First of all, let me say that I am thankful that the La Sierra University Board of Trustees was willing to listen to the concerns of many Seventh-day Adventists and to respond to them by affirming our church’s traditional view on creation. Having said that, I feel, as others have expressed, that their respond was not as clear and forthright as it could and should have been. Will the biology professors who have taught that the earth was created over millions of years through the process of natural selection (which even Darwin eventually renounced)as the only viable means of life being created on planet earth be required to stop teaching this as fact? The board can’t force them to change their beliefs, but they should see to it that what the professors teach does not contradict the Bible and Ellen White. They should be asked to sign a statement that they will do just that: that would quickly settle the matter. They need to be held accountable for what they teach since they are being paid by the church and its constituents. If they are not willing to uphold a literal, 24-hour, six day creation week by fiat “ex nihilo”, they should resign, and, if they are unwilling to do so, they should be terminated. God will hold board members accountable if they willingly allow falsehood to be taught in our schools. Let’s continue to pray that the administration and board will take a clear and unequivocal stand on the side of creation as most of our other colleges and universities have done.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
6
November 17, 2009
As I have been keeping up and praying throughout this whole matter, I keep lifted up Pastor Asserick and others who uphold the truth as it is in the Bible. I do not read that LSU has stated that they do believe and teach the initial reason of this situation….that God created everything in six literal days.
I hope that LSU staff have read the chapter “The Literal Week” lately in Patriarchs and Prophets. Disregarding the truth of the literal creation disregards the fourth commandment and therefore disregards The Lord altogether.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
8
November 17, 2009
We been talking about that very subject with references to 3SG 90-91.
The only answer we have seen here from those inclined toward the Theistic Evolutionist POV is “then Ellen White was wrong”.
in Christ,
Bob
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
7
November 17, 2009
@Gary Jensen:
Ok – so let’s suppose that LSU says “well yes we have hired evolutionists to teach our biology courses but they promise not to inform the students that in fact long-ages evolutionism is the best explanation for the diversity of life that we see around us today – no matter what the bible says to the contrary. And yes those teachers do BELIEVE that biological science can’t really be done without a firm belief in evolutionism — but they promise not to mention it in class”.
So now – we have an SDA parent of a science student debating whether to send their son or daughter to LSU or to one of our other highly qualified schools that offer biology courses.
hmmm – where to spend that $20,000 on distinctively Adventist private education for a degree in science.
That would be the question.
Then they would also have to ask themselves about the percentage of the religion department staff that is also prone to believe that the Bible doctrines on the “true origin of life” should be subordinated to evolutionist guesswork on origins.
(Seems I recall that point being a particularly difficult one at Walla Walla a few years ago).
In any case – a moment of pause for reflection.
in Christ,
Bob
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
6
November 18, 2009
@C. L. Bond: The thing is, L. Bond, God has time on His hands and knows when people will die. We don’t. We have to assume that any person can die at any time and that it is necessary for them to know and practice the truth.
The Bible is very clear that no lie is of the truth; that we are sanctified by the truth (God’s word); that knowing the truth will set us free. The Bible is clear that Jesus is the Creator, the Way, the Truth and the Life.
Therefore, teaching evolution is really moving people away from Jesus to something else.
I believe we should be impatient for change and insistent about it – in a godly way.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
7
November 18, 2009
_____________
My response:
What is the point of “general oversight” if this oversite doesn’t really affect how each professort teaches his/her classes? Again, it seems like the original problem that started this whole ordeal is still in place at LSU – i.e., many of the science professors continue to promote the truth of the mainstream evolutionary view of origins of life on this planet. That was and still is the problem…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
8
November 18, 2009
(I haven’t commented a lot (or at all) since the Board meeting, but to me the outcome is balanced and reasonable)
It’s impossible for a university to operate in an atmosphere where management wants to micromanage the content of each professor’s courses. An institution that operates like that is not even a university any more. The whole premise of a university is that the person who knows most about a topic, who has devoted his/her life to study, reading, research and teaching on a topic, is the person who teaches about it… and teaching includes deciding what and how to teach, not just delivering pre-specified content. University administrators, no matter how godly, cannot possibly have that level of content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in relation to every program taught in the school.
Those calling for that kind of micro-management of course content are not calling for the reform of a university, they are calling for a university to be transformed into a different kind of thing altogether.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
8
November 18, 2009
I don’t see any “micro-management” in the administrators upholding our Creator God according to His authority and the instruction He has been pleased to give us through Scriptures and through Mrs. White. This is simply “management.” Does any garden continue to grow beautifully without pulling some weeds? And what are weeds? Are they not merely plants out of place?
At LSU, there are some weeds to pull. The administration is negligent of its duty to ignore the weeds. If, on the other hand, the administration were to lay down rules for the teachers mandating their lesson books, and providing them with the syllabi from which to teach, etc., this would be “micro-management.” No one here is advocating this.
Without proper management and the performance of their God-given duties, they are as if they managed nothing. When management cannot make even a change away from false doctrines, that management has lost the reins. Carrying out one’s duty may not always be pleasant–but it is no less a duty. Mrs. White speaks of just this sort of duty (reproving others) in the following:
The question remains, will the LSU administrators carry out their duty?
Erik
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
6
November 18, 2009
@Bravus: Bravus,
I have taught at the university level for 16 years and I do not fully agree with you.
1) A university must have a mission and objectives
2) A university must have a target population (even if anybody and everybody)
3) A university must have a governance structure
4) A university is not a free-for-all
Academic freedom only operates when it falls within the parameters of those points above. The moment any person in the university goes astray, it is the responsibility of the head (Principal, President, Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, etc) to see that that straying is corrected.
In this modern technological age, it is easy to monitor.
For example, where I am all courses have an electronic base and the dean has access to all the course content. Thus it is his right to review if he feels that what is being taught is an anomaly.
Now a head will not scrutinise every course outline and lecture material, but once a complaint is aired about a course it is incumbent on those in authority to investigate and see that the issues are resolved.
Thus if any SDA complains that evolution is taught, IT MUST BE RESOLVED!
It is not necessary either for the head to be a content expert. There is a process of peer review. In this case he can call on professors of related courses in different SDA universities to review the material.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
November 18, 2009
@Sean Pitman: In other words, Sean, they resort to “general oversight” like a farmer looking at a field of corn from an aircraft.
They don’t care to go down in the field and examine each stalk.
I would not want such a farm manager since disease in my field may not be seen at the macro level and will only be detected at the micro level.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
November 19, 2009
Some comments suggest that the problem will be solved by eliminating 1) teachers who accept a long history of life and 2) administrators who permit them to teach. I don’t believe this is the case. The heliocentric theory of the universe did not disappear because the Pope exercised his power to put people in jail. It survived because it was the best theory.
It seems to me that many of the comments miss the real nature of the problem. The people who accept the long history of life have not set out to undermine SDA beliefs. In fact, there are some SDA scientists who very deliberately set out to show that the prevailing theories were wrong but were forced to change their minds because they could not do so. (I don’t know specifically about the LSU group.) One example is Peter Edgar Hare, a devoted Adventist who died in 2006. He developed amino acid dating in a effort to show the other dating methods were wrong.
“Ed Hare is widely regarded as the father of amino acid geochronology.”
“Before joining that laboratory [Carnegie Institution Geophysical Laboratory] , Ed had been an early member of the then newly organized General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist’s Geoscience Research Institute (GRI). When it was decided by church authorities that the primary purpose of GRI would be apologetic and not scientific, Ed realized that his intellectual honesty prevented him from remaining a GRI staff member.” (See p. 17, http://www.atoday.com/files/Vol%2014%20No%204.pdf .)
So, you take an honest and dedicated Adventist man and send him away to a laboratory where he becomes world famous. And, here we are 50 years later with the same problem. There is now more evidence for a long history of life than before.
Sean Pitman has given links above to his excellent collection of information about many of the prevailing dating methods. He has presented many reasons why we might doubt existing chronologies, but I can find no way to make the evidence fit with a literal interpretation of Genesis. You’ve got to do more than poke a few holes in existing theories.
Historically, Adventists have interpreted Genesis as literal history. However, our founders were people who sought the truth no matter where it led them. So, which do you want, teachers who uphold our traditional beliefs by authority without reason or teachers whose honesty cannot be shaken?
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
November 19, 2009
Some have mentioned that “Ellen White was wrong” in 3SG 90-91 to speak ill of evolutionism and to claim God showed her the literal 7 day week of creation week. That same POV tends to argue that Moses was either “wrong” in Gen 1-2 or that Moses’ work can be “bent” to fit evolutionism just as many Theistic Evolutionists of the past “had hoped”. They also tend to claim that “God was wrong” in Ex 20:8-11 (though in truth ALL of scripture – is GOD saying something 2Tim 3:16-17) – for saying “SIX days shall you labor… for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE…”… etc etc
And of course many Bible believing Christians here complain about that line of reasoning on their part because it looks so much like a slash-and-burn-all-for-evolutionism approach to the Bible subject of origins.
But if you stop and think about that pro-evolution argument, once believed the result is that any effort to correct biology professors at LSU on this point is not merely a “nit-pick” it is scientifically and biblically dead wrong. Trying to stop those evolutionist professors in that case would be seen by the pro-evolutionists as “meddling” at the micro level.
No doubt any adminstrator who actually agrees with the all-for-evolutionism POV would try to hide his actions behind a “don’t want to meddle” kind of defense.
But as often as not — that same group of pro-evolutionists might admit that honest professors and administration should be joining hands in telling the world how proud they are to be teaching evolution as fact and as the best science there can possibly be on the subject of origins — rather than claiming one thing — while doing another.
The tactics being used to “promote evolution anyway” at LSU are certainly not praiseworthy at this point. And 3SG 90-91 would make that point in triplicate which is why our evolutionist friends are so opposed to it.
in Christ,
Bob
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
November 19, 2009
@Carl:
It doesn’t matter if a person does or does not “set out” to undermine the stated SDA position on any of its “fundamental” doctrines. Many of those who disagree with the fundamental positions of the organized SDA Church are very honest and sincere men and women. However, honesty alone does not qualify a person to be an official paid representative of any organization. A person must also agree to abide by and publicly support the stated fundamental ideals or goals of his/her employer. That notion seems to me to be self evident for a person who honestly accepts a paycheck to do a particular job.
Beyond this, Edgar Hare, while certainly honest in his ideas, was mistaken. His theory of amino acid racemization dating (AARD) being a reliable independent dating method has been fairly recently falsified. AARD is now considered, even by mainstream scientists, a relative dating method at best. In other words, it must first be calibrated against another dating method before it can be used in any particular location.
From the Minnisota State University, notice the following comments in an article published in 2000 regarding AARD:
Some, however, argue that that shells can be much more accurately and independently dated via AARD in comparison to bone. But,I’m afraid this isn’t true either. AARD of shells (both sea shells and egg shells) is also dependent upon calibration techniques with other dating methods – like radiocarbon dating.
“This study explores time-averaging (temporal mixing) at very high sampling resolution: that of adjacent shells collected from the same stratum. Nine samples of the bivalve Chione fluctifraga were collected from four Holocene cheniers (beach ridges) on the Colorado Delta (Gulf of California) and 165 shells were dated using radiocarbon-calibrated amino-acid racemization (D-alloisoleucine/L-isoleucine).”
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ceam/kowabstta.html
For more information, see additional quotations regarding the fact that AARD is a relative dating method at best.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/aminoaciddating.html#Addendum
And, for information on the potential and pitfalls of AARD in general, see:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/aminoaciddating
So, you see, the real argument isn’t based on the demonstrable independence of AARD dating, but on views regarding the reliability of radiocarbon dating and other radiometric dating methods as a clearly adequate basis for calibration of AARD – even though many of these other methods are also calibrated against each other and are not always consistent with all methods of age estimation – or even amongst themselves (see discussion of the problem of dating tektites Link or Cosmogenic Isotope Dating Link below).
http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html#Tektites
http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html#Cosmogenic
One more thing is most interesting. As Dr. Paul Giem pointed out in a recent letter to Shane, AARD is actually much more consistent with the young-life perspective than with the suggestion that it supports old-age notions. The work of R. H. Brown in this regard is most interesting.
R. H. Brown, Amino Acid Dating, Origins 12(1):8-25 (1985).
http://grisda.org/origins/12008.htm
If anyone has any substantive counters to this information, I’d be most grateful for it. However, when I’ve presented this data before, the very best anyone could come up with was the usual distinctly unhelpful pejorative comment that, “Sean has exhibited yet again the principle that a little knowledge is dangerous.” If so, I ask those in the know on this topic to please educate me with something substantive that is actually backed up by real data…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
November 19, 2009
@Bravus:
Would you define an employer who requires employees to support, at the very least, the stated fundamental ideals or goals of the organization a “micro-manager”? – please…
What you seem to be arguing for here is a completely hands-off approach to management – i.e., non-management. Well, Bravus, that’s the very definition of anarchy which leads to chaos and eventual collapse of any viable organization.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
November 19, 2009
@Carl:
The reason that the “heliocentric theory” argument is often classified as a “straw canard meant to pacify those who are not serious students of the issue at hand” is that it has no application to the present situation.
1. The heliocentric canard attempts to validate evolutionism as if it had the same level of science as the physics of gravity and astronomy. (thus the atheist evolutionists that are on record lamenting the distinctively religious nature of the arguments for evolutionism provide food for thought for the serious student of this subject).
2. The heliocentric canard attempt to equivocate between the Law of God saying “SIX days you shall labor…for in SIX days the Lord made” (written in stone and described in Gen 1-2), and the much less “Biblically substantive” arguments of Catholic priests in the dark ages arguing for geocentricism because “they thought it was best”.
3. The heliocentric canard ignores the fact that neither the earth NOR the Sun turns out to be “the center of the universe” and that “changing doctrine” everytime science “discovers a new fact” was never valid exegesis in the first place. To simplify – suppose the Catholic church went from the bungled “earth is the center of the universe” and that is the unchangable word of God from his Church leaders, to “Ok now we say the Sun is the center of the Universe” and that is bible doctrine the unchangable word of God in scripture, to “oops! No! What we meant was that our galaxy has a center and that is the center of the universe according to the Word of God” — only to be followed by .. “oops! Nope scratch that… now the Bible says…”
Which is the not-well-thought-through model our TE friends seem to be suggesting.
“As it turns out” the Bible can not simply be “bent according to every wind of atheist evolutionist doctrine” and adapted to a TE framework.
“As it turns out” Ex 20:8-10 is true – so also Gen 1-2 and so also 3SG 90-91.
“As it turns out” Patterson was right about the “religious nature” of the arguments put forward for evolutionism — EVEN if you ignore the outright publically confirmed frauds and hoaxes used to prop up the failed doctrines of evolutionism.
Why in the world would we want to chain the Bible to that kind of “Toads Wild Ride” story telling.
in Christ,
Bob
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
November 19, 2009
@BobRyan:
I would also like to add to what you said the comment that the SDA Church, as an organization, is unlike the common comparison to the Catholic Church during the “Dark Ages” (usually in reference to the horrible treatment of Galileo) in one key respect – i.e., the SDA Church does not take up or claim to have civil authority over anyone. All are free to join or leave the SDA Church as members or employees – entirely free of any civil burdens or penalties.
However, this civil freedom does not mean that once one decides to be an official paid representative of the SDA Church, or any other organization for that matter, that one can expect a paycheck for doing just anything. Paid employees of the SDA Church, as with any organization, are paid to support and promote the stated fundamental SDA ideals. If a person cannot do this in good conscience, how honest is it for that person to still take on a paid position as an SDA representative? – as either a teacher or pastor? How honest is it to steal from one’s employer? – because, if you’re really honest with yourself, stealing is what it really is. And, of course, theft is wrong in anyone’s book.
So, while the SDA Church does not take on civil powers (this always turns out horribly wrong for any religious organization that tries it), it must have powers of internal government or control over its own paid representatives who, of their own free will, claim to be able to actively support and promote the clearly stated ideals of their employer… and should be held to this standard. Anything short of this will result in anarchy and chaos and eventual collapse of any organization – to include the SDA Church.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
November 19, 2009
@Sean Pitman M.D.:
Sean,
You have a great deal of information that raises questions about the accuracy of dating methods. But, how big are the uncertainties? If all of the dating methods are as wrong as you suggest, how long is the history of life? You still have very old trees on top of very old mountains. You still have ice ages, the Bretz floods, very old fossils, very old lava flows and very old islands in the Pacific Ocean.
My conclusion is that no matter how you challenge dating methods, you can’t fit the evidence into any time spane reasonably close to Ussher’s chronology. I can’t find any way to get past that point, so I conclude that the Genesis text was written not to teach literal history, but rather to teach a spiritual truth. To me, that makes Genesis more credible, not less.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
November 19, 2009
@Sean Pitman M.D.:
Sean,
I do not understand you insistance that SDA employment implies adherence to authoritarian control. Why can’t a professor be paid to be honest? I believe that the most fundamental concept of Adventism is to honestly seek the truth. That must come before the support of traditional beliefs.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
November 19, 2009
@Carl:
You wrote:
The uncertainties are much greater for radiometric dating methods that you might imagine – especially compared to the overwhelming evidence in favor of a catastrophic model for the formation of much of the geologic column and fossil record in rapid succession – with little time for erosion, bioturbation, or the establishment of the diversity of life that would be expected if these gaps between the layers really did represent many millions of years of time.
The Bretz floods are a classic example of this mindset. J Harlen Bretz argued for most his life, in the face of extreme criticism from his peers in the geological community, that the Scablands of Washington State were the result of massive shortly-space catastrophic flooding; that they did not develop over many millions of years as was the prevailing theory for most of his life. Only when the origin of the massive amounts of water need to support Bretz hypothesis was discovered to have been a local lake, rather than a Noachian flood, was his hypothesis generally accepted by mainstream science. For further information on this very interesting story see:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/harlenbretz.html
As far as your argument for “very old trees on top of very old mountains”, that’s simply not true on both counts. The oldest living tree is no more than 5,000 years old and the science of placing dead wood in an ancient sequence (i.e., the science of dendrochronology) is fraught with numerous serious statistical problems (see link).
http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html#Tree
The age of the mountains themselves is problematic given that erosion rates are so high on mountain ranges that one wonders how on Earth they can still be covered by sedimentary layers? – when these layers should have been washed off many times over by now? (see link)
http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion
As far as your argument for “old lava flows”, many lava flows that were once thought to be ancient are now thought to be much younger (see links).
http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Younger
http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Paraconformities
And, Arthur Chadwick’s discovery of world-wide paleocurrents, flowing in the same direction over vast areas, strikes at the rook of long-age notions for life on Earth.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Paleocurrents
The same thing is true of the discovery of radiocarbon in coal, oil, and fossils – and for the discovery of preserved soft tissues within many different fossils (to include sequencable proteins and even fragments of DNA). All of this argues for a very recent origin of life on this planet (see links).
http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html#Coal
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilizeddna.html
You are quite mistaken regarding the idea that Genesis was intended to be taken as allegorical or only as describing “spiritual truth”. Most if not all serious Hebrew scholars understand that the author(s) of the Genesis account intended for it to be taken as a description of real literal history.
Consider the following comments from James Barr, Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford:
And, this is from someone who didn’t believe in the accuracy of Genesis. Prof. Barr just believed that the author(s) of this account intended to write a literal historical narrative, but that these author(s) got it wrong.
You do see that this is an entirely different argument from the one you’re trying to make?
Given that it is quite obvious that the authors intended to be taken literally, upon what can you base your argument that the Genesis account says anything whatsoever that is “more credible”? How can one place any credibility in the metaphysical claims of anyone who clearly cannot be trusted in those claims that are actually physically testable and falsifiable?
For example, this is one reason why I don’t find the Book of Mormon to be credible – because its testable historical claims have been clearly falsified beyond any shadow of a doubt – in my opinion. If I felt the same way about the biblical record, I could not be a Christian. I might believe in a God of some kind, but certainly not Jesus or the Christian-style God. It is because of the historically consistent and verifiable nature of the biblical record that I am a Christian, and a Seventh-day Adventist, today.
I pray that one day you will also come to this realization and appreciation of the basis of biblical faith…
Sincerely,
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
November 19, 2009
@Carl:
There are those who honestly believe that the Virgin Mary is alive and well in Heaven – and that we should pray to her to intercede for us. There are those who honestly and sincerely believe that God doesn’t even exist and that humanism is the height of morality. There are those who honestly believe that Sunday (or Wednesday or Friday) is the correct day of worship. There are those who honestly believe that people are currently burning in Hell and that they will be consciously tortured for ever and ever in the fires of torment. There are those who are honest and very sincere in many many different beliefs to which the SDA Church, as an organization, does not subscribe…
Yet, according to your argument here, the SDA Church should hire them simply for their honesty?… right? All honest and sincere people, regardless of their actual beliefs, should apply to the SDA Church for a paycheck? If that were the case, why don’t I get a paycheck from the SDA Church as an official representative? Certainly this would make the SDA Church the most popular Church in the world!!! – at least until it ran out of money…
Seriously now, while honesty is a very good thing, a very good indeed, it isn’t enough for paid SDA representation. While honesty and sincerity of motive are in fact the basis of salvation, which is the goal of us all, honesty is not the basis of the Gospel message of hope. Hope in the realities of a bright future requires a basis of more than sincerity or honesty of the speaker. Hope requires evidence if it is to be a solid hope.
So yes, while doctrines will not save anyone, the doctrines behind the Gospel’s “good news” do have the power to give people a solid hope in a very bright future. This hope is valuable to give to people in that it can make people’s lives much better here and now as well as in the future.
This is what the SDA Church is in the business of doing – providing the hope of the Gospel message. The SDA Church does support the idea that honesty and sincerity of heart are good things, but if this is all the SDA Church was good for, it wouldn’t be nearly as valuable as an organization as it is. It is because it goes beyond the support of good motives to the presentation of very good evidence for the Gospel hope that it is such a precious organization in the sight of God.
And, in order for the Gospel message to be useful or beneficial, it must be consistent. The Gospel message is not based on opposing opinions, but upon unified opinions regarding its supporting evidence. And, the SDA Church has a unique message to give in this regard. Because of this, paid representation must be based on more than the determination of the honesty or sincerity of a person who wishes to be paid. The person hoping to be an official representative has to have the proper training, knowledge, and set of fundamental beliefs in order to be an effective representative for any viable organization – to include the SDA Church.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
November 19, 2009
P.S. – Yes, it is possible to be saved without ever having a conscious hope of salvation while on Earth. It is because of this that I believe that there will be quite a number of very surprised atheists in Heaven someday…
But, how much better their lives could have been while here on Earth?… if they had only known?…
This is the difference between good motives (which are the basis of salvation – i.e., a love of truth) vs. the Gospel hope (which is based on knowledge). While the Gospel does not have the power to save a person, it does have the power to give solid hope to a person and to aide in a closer walk with God – which might have secondary implications which tend to lead a person toward good motives and therefore toward salvation…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
November 19, 2009
@Sean Pitman M.D.: My comments were in response to specific comments in this thread which said, pretty much verbatim, “management would mean managing all of the content of individual courses”. I realise that that is not the argument you are making, but the discussion is not all about you and your perspective. I responded to someone else’s comment. I have not as yet said anything about the broader issue of whether it is appropriate to require adherence to a particular perspective in university courses (I don’t believe it is, and I agree with Carl above that everyone’s first responsibility is to the truth – to not bearing false witness). I simply said that a university in which management dictates the content of courses is not a university.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
November 19, 2009
@Bravus:
I’m glad I misunderstood you (you should have specifically referenced the comment you were talking about if you wished to avoid confusion), but am still confused about your statement that you don’t think any teacher should be held to any particular standard in the university setting – even if Church owned and operated.
Even public universities have standards as a basis for consideration for employment. For example, do you think any young-life creationist would get hired by a public university to present his/her sincere and honest understanding that the modern evolutionary synthesis view of origins is clearly mistaken? – that life on this planet is indeed of recent origin? – and the fossil record/geologic column is actually a record of magnificent shortly-spaced catastrophes?
You can bet your life that this would never happen at a public university today. Public universities would never hire someone, as a science professor, who isn’t very close to the scientific mainstream in his/her beliefs – even if he/she were otherwise very honest and sincere. But why not? Isn’t honesty and sincerity of belief enough for university employment? Of course not. Not even for public universities. Honesty is necessary for employment, but honesty, by itself, isn’t enough. Viable organizations also require the assent of paid representatives to honestly and sincerely promote certain basic ideals of the organization. If one’s honesty will not allow such assent, then how is it honest to take a paycheck from that organization? – while going about doing the opposite of what you know you were hired to do? How is this not stealing? – a robbery of the employers time and money?
In short, there simply would be no point in having a SDA Church school or educational system of any kind if that school was not fundamentally reflective of SDA ideals on all fundamental aspects of SDAism (and especially those dealing with the very name “SDA”). Short of this, SDAs might as well put their money into something else and send their kids to public schools and universities.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
November 19, 2009
I actually agree with all that.
I wish the SDA education system the greatest success in finding professors of biology who sincerely believe that a young earth and/or young life scenario is true and can validly be taught from a scientific perspective.
Telling the truth about modern biology means telling the truth about evolutionary theory – that it is the best explanatory framework science has for the diversity of life.
La Sierra, as far as I can tell, honestly and accurately teaches modern biology and then, crucially, also presents creationist perspectives and enough understanding of the philosophy of science that students understand that science cannot measure miracles and creation is a miraculous event.
They dare teach all that becomes a university: what dares teach more is none.
I stand by my comment that you can have a university or you can dictate the content of course – you can’t do both. Secular universities do not dictate the content of courses. They do insist that people are qualified and knowledgeable in their field. And like it or not, agree or not, in biology that means evolution.
If the SDA church decides it wants to return to having ‘missionary training colleges’ without external accreditation, and wants to stop teaching much of biology (perhaps keeping enough for medical purposes), then the idea of teaching only recent creationism is open.
I can’t see any other way to reconcile the competing demands.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
November 20, 2009
There are many thoughtful comments and I don’t want to be redundant. I do feel that the real issues are not being addressed. The documents are phrased diplomatically. However, I was hoping for a more direct approach. Since this is an Adventist university, the subject here should not even be an issue.
Here are my thoughts:
Creating cookie cutter courses would not lend itself to true science or faith. All of the courses that are offered in our institutions should be infused with our faith. The Creator should be integrated and woven throughout our thinking and teaching. It should be a natural process in the life of a Christian professor.
If a professor does not agree with our stand on this very essential position, we should respectfully request that they teach elsewhere. There are hundreds of sincere creationist scientists who have been “expelled” from secular universities. Perhaps our universities might consider these individuals for teaching positions.
It appears that much thought has gone into the development of the above documents. However, they are disappointing. The problem has NOT been addressed. The study group recommendations are distractions. They will frustrate those of us who feel strongly that something needs to be done. These documents trumpet a clear message that the board believes nothing of substance needs to be done. Christiane Marshall
Christiane Marshall
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
November 20, 2009
@Bravus:
How do you know that the theory of evolution is the “best explanatory framework” to explain life? Upon what do you base this assertion? – Do you actually know what you are talking about? Do you personally understand the creative potential of random mutation and natural selection? – and how this mechanism could reasonable produce the functional complexity and diversity of life that we see around us? If so, please do explain it to me! – because I’ve not been able to grasp it now despite intensive study of it for over 15 years.
You assume that no one knowledgeable in the biological sciences could honestly doubt the modern evolutionary synthesis view. Well, that’s simply not true. There are many who are very well educated and hold the highest level degrees in the biological sciences who honestly do not believe the modern evolutionary synthesis to be correct. Like it or not, agree or not, such biologists and geneticists would not be hired to teach their views or their doubts in a public university – despite their honesty and sincerity. In this sense, even secular universities do indeed dictate the content of their courses. No creationist, however qualified or knowledgeable, would be hired to teach at a public university as a professor within the biological sciences.
You see, you make the classic argument that anyone who disagrees with you or with mainstream evolutionary views on origins must be, by definition, dishonest or ignorant. That is how you can know who to hire or reject for employment to a position of science professor if you were in charge of a university. Those who don’t subscribe to the evolutionary doctrine you’d simply label as “dishonest”, “ignorant”, “stupid”, or “insane” – as Richard Dawkins also puts it.
This is different from my position in that I do not think to judge the honesty of a person (since only God can accurately judge motive anyway). I merely judge the views of a person as being in or out of line with the stated position of his/her employer. A professor can be as honest as can be and still be out of line with the opinions of an employer – and therefore dishonest to tell that employer that he/she could work as an effective representative. That, clearly, would be dishonest – by anyone’s definition…
One more thing, accreditation is not an issue here. It is very easy to teach about the theory of evolution to the point where students can easily pass national examinations on this topic. This should be done at all SDA institutions of higher learning. The argument here is that SDA education should not end here. SDA education should go beyond the mere presentation of the arguments behind the theory of evolution to present why these arguments are either questionable or clearly mistaken given a careful examination of all of the available evidence – as well as why the creationist perspective is best supported by the preponderance or “weight of evidence” – as Mrs. White puts it. This sort of teaching would fulfill all accreditation requirements. This is what SDA educators should be doing if they truly wish to accurately and honestly represent their employer…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
November 20, 2009
Not at all do I want to judge the honesty of anyone. The point Carl was making, that I picked up on, is that if a professor honestly believes that, within the (limited) context of science, evolutionary theory is the best explanation for the diversity of life, and the university asks that professor to claim in his/her courses that this is not the case, that would be dishonest.
I haven’t been impugning anyone’s honesty, and neither have I said that honesty is the only standard for judging the quality of a professor… on the contrary, I clearly said that the standards relate to professional knowledge, experience and professionalism (and also to teaching skill, concern and respect for students and a variety of other things).
On your last paragraph: what you describe is exactly what La Sierra is already doing.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
November 20, 2009
…and (newest post on this site about La Sierra PR) I’m not the one who is claiming someone is “bordering out right [sic] lies”.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
November 20, 2009
@Bravus:
Of course that would be dishonest. No one is suggesting that anyone teach anything that goes against what one personally believes! Where did you get such an idea?
However, SDA institutions also shouldn’t be hiring someone just because they are “honest”, regardless of what the person actually believes. Honesty, by itself, isn’t a basis for paid representation. The actual beliefs of a person should also be evaluated to see if they are in line with the fundamental positions of the SDA Church.
There are two ways to be dishonest here. One way is to teach something you don’t actually believe. That would be morally wrong on a personal level. The other way is to teach something you do honestly believe to be true, but which goes directly against what your employer hired you to teach. This is also being dishonest, not against your own beliefs, but against your employer.
That’s not true. In my last paragraph I noted that accreditation is based on teaching about the theory of evolution to a certain standard of knowledge – - but is not limited to this level of knowledge. Accreditation can also be obtained while teaching about creationism as well – above and beyond the ToE.
You argue that LSU is in fact doing this, which is not really true – at least not when it comes to consistency of teaching. LSU is not promoting the truth of literal 6-day creationism, a fundamental position of the organized SDA Church, in all of its classes. Many, if not all, of its hired science professors are in fact telling their students that the literal 6-day creationist view of origins is utter lunacy – that the evolutionary view of origins taking place over hundreds of millions of years of time is in fact the Gospel Truth. That is in fact what they are teaching their students at LSU.
This is not in line with the position of their employer and is therefore a robbery of their employer’s time and money – a moral wrong in anyone’s book.
And, by the way, I notice that you claim the obvious truth of the ToE yourself, but don’t wish to defend your assertions? – your personal knowledge of the creative potential of RM/NS?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
November 20, 2009
@Bravus:
When someone is presenting a particular story as the “truth” when he/she knows that what is being said is clearly mistaken or not the whole truth, that, by definition, is a deliberate lie – is it not?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
2 
3