LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department

by Sean Pitman

.

It has recently come to my attention that La Sierra University has quietly taken the chairmanship of the biology department away from Dr. Lee Grismer and given it to Dr. John Perumal (not updated on LSU’s website until after October 17).

From the church’s perspective, this certainly is an improvement since Dr. Grismer is an ardent evolutionist who has long advocated for slow evolutionary changes and common ancestry for life on this planet over hundreds of millions of years.  His publications and media appearances also reflect this position and he has shown little patience for students who wish to discuss or even mention the Adventist position in his classroom – and has told such students that those who hold to the Adventist position on a literal 7-day creation week are ignorant and stupid and are even the ones who “fly airplanes into buildings.” (Link)

Dr. Perumal, on the other hand, is supportive of the Adventist position on origins as far as I’ve been told (I have not met him in person).  So, it certainly is a positive step to have, after many years, a department chair at LSU who is actually supportive of the Adventist position!

It is still concerning, however, that LSU continues to maintain and hire neo-Darwinists and/or theistic evolutionists to teach in its science and even religion departments.  I am also unaware of any active support, from either the science or religion departments at LSU, regarding the Adventist position on a literal 7-day creation week.  No one seems to be giving lectures on this topic, favorable to Adventism, at LSU.  It seems to me, then, that AAA accreditation should have been withheld until this situation is rectified by LSU.

It is, however, a positive step in the right direction that the new chair of the biology department favors the Seventh-day Adventist position on origins.  This news is certainly encouraging. Additional information along these lines, from either the Adventist Accrediting Association (AAA) or LSU would most certainly be welcome as well – such as any lecture materials or presentations planned which aim to highlight the Adventist perspective on origins in a positive light.  Perhaps inviting, on a regular basis, some well-known and well-respected advocates of the Adventist position to give lectures at LSU.  This would go a long way in helping to ease the concerns of many over what is being taught at LSU regarding the topic of origins – those like Dr. Leonard Brand or Dr. Arthur Chadwick come to mind . . .

Dr. Arthur Chadwick

Dr. Leonard Brand

Share on Facebook3Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn2Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

88 thoughts on “LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department

  1. This move makes perfect sense.

    To put things in perspective, there are two organizations accrediting La Sierra. AAA wants Adventism to be taught. WASC wants the university to be autonomous. Under ordinary circumstances, a chairman with 87 publications would never abdicate in favor of one with 2 (I am assuming the numbers are accurate, but strongly suspect that they are approximately correct). But Perumel is a short-age creationist, with a remarkable story of conversion (I have met him), and Grismer is not.

    I suspect that the story is being soft-pedaled because the university doesn’t want WASC to make waves and possibly withdraw accreditation. I suspect also that it was done in such a way as to be deniable (e.g., Grismer wanted more time for research). Grismer is still on the faculty (he is tenured) and WASC can’t really complain. The change was done without fanfare, hoping to fly under WASC’s radar.

    What could be done, and what should be done, is to revamp that final quarter biology class to be more Adventist-friendly. I think those of us who are capable of helping should volunteer to help Perumel in any way we can.




    0
    View Comment
    • @Paul Giem: Paul, your theory is indeed very reasonable, but I don’t think it is correct. First, I have argued that WASC’s concerns about autonomy were solicited by Randal Wisbey so that he could get bylaw changes that would give him greater autonomy from the church. One key item of evidence that has become public is that in 2011 one of Wisbey’s minions, then LSU board member Lenny Darnell, recorded himself saying that he planned to write WASC and demand that WASC recommend and insist on changes to the board structure that would dilute the power of the church officers on the board:

      http://advindicate.com/articles/2793.

      Second, the bylaw changes Wisbey wanted were approved by the constituency back in May, so WASC has no grounds to complain about the lack of institutional autonomy, and has indicated that it is pleased with what was done:

      http://advindicate.com/articles/2013/10/13/wasc-visiting-team-commends-la-sierra-for-revisions-to-university-governance-practices

      My theory as to why this change of department chairmen has been so hush hush is that, 1) Wisbey didn’t want his liberal base to know that he had thrown any sort of bone to AAA; he wanted them thinking he had gotten an unconditional surrender from AAA, and 2) Wisbey doesn’t want the wider SDA Church to know that AAA thought there was anything wrong at La Sierra that needed changing, much less that the chairman of the biology department needed changing.




      0
      View Comment
      • @David Read:

        Both points of view may be correct. They may have been assisted by Grismer’s decision to dive under his desk, or his simply tiring of the responsibilities of department chairmanship. Sometimes several causes converge to produce a common result, and the precise percentages cannot always be assigned empirically. Don’t forget, there may be more than just naturalistic reasons here.

        In any case, I think we should pray that God will work through this situation, and those of us in a position to help, should.




        0
        View Comment
  2. Evidence that God is in control. LSU could become a beacon of light shining on the truth of our world an how we came to be here. That is as it should be.




    0
    View Comment
    • Charles, they probably fear the loss of income as one major reason to the adjustment, in the hopes of securing on going support financially. And yes, there are no doubt at least some honest individuals who helped begin some correction to this deplorable situation.

      We could hardly consider the issue corrected and resolved, even though some positive action is good news.

      Once the devil gets a firm grip, he won’t “go home” just because a few people complain of the situation. It will require a hard fought battle and those who the authority and position to do so, must act decidedly and immeadiately.

      A band aid on a severe cut will not heal the wound nor in any way be adequate in light of the damage done in the past and continuing to be done even now. It will require a wholesale house cleaning from top down, that we are not apt to see.

      Bible Adventism will triumph. But not in the context of the modern spirituality.




      0
      View Comment
    • @Holly Pham: Holly, I believe this was part of a deal to get AAA accreditation. AAA is well aware of many of the problems with La Sierra that this website has exposed. That’s why I, for one, was furious when the AAA board voted to extend Adventist accreditation for three years. But apparently AAA did not do that with no strings attached; it would appear that they insisted on this change in the leadership of the biology department.

      There may have been other conditions, as well, but if so I am not aware of those other conditions. Both AAA and LSU are treating whatever accord they reached with strict secrecy, a secrecy that is unwarranted by the situation. For various reasons, including the existence of this website, the problems at La Sierra have become publicly known, and the steps the church is taking to try to correct the situation should also be made public.




      0
      View Comment
    • @Holly Pham:

      Speculation;

      Lets pretend you are a scientist with an active research program with 87 publications in the peer reviewed literature. Lets pretend you are doing your duty as a teacher and trying to both teach science and lead a department committed to teaching science as you were employed to do. Lets pretend that over a few years you were being regularly attacked and demonized for doing science in the accepted way by those who think that science is part of religion. I would imagine he would not think for a nanosecond before relinquishing his head of department status in deference to someone who has a negligible scientific profile (2 pubs in scopus) but who may be a great teacher and is happy to accept the role of apparatchik and deal with the attack dogs of fundamentalism.

      But that is just my thought experiment.




      2
      View Comment
        • @gene fortner:
          I have no problem with identification of problems with evolutionary theory or any other theory in science. Just read any peer reviewed journal in this field and what do you find? Every hypothesis driven scientific investigation is based on addressing a question or a problem with the existing knowledge or interpretation.

          A student of science should be taught the things I have tried to articulate many times on this site.

          1] Science is about understanding the natural world by natural cause. It says nothing about the supernatural or religion which are not at all based on naturalism.

          2] Science is about testing hyothesis by experimental observation. If you cant construct an experiment it is not within the domain of science.

          3] Science is about documenting the experiment and the results in peer reviewed literature. This is the canonical repository of scientific knowledge. It is not all of human knowledge. It is simply a part of human knowledge; generated by a method accepted by its practitioners. It is not a philosophy or a world view and can be and is performed by people of any and all religious and political views. It is open to all but as a participant you are expected to have the decency to acknowledge the existing knowledge as produced in good faith and a basic platform from which to proceed.




          2
          View Comment
        • A student of science should be taught the things I have tried to articulate many times on this site.

          1] Science is about understanding the natural world by natural cause. It says nothing about the supernatural or religion which are not at all based on naturalism.

          Science is not limited to discoveries about what mindless natural mechanisms can do. Science can also discover the activities of intelligent agents at play in our world and in our universe. Otherwise, various sciences such as forensics, anthropology, and even SETI would be impossible.

          This common appeal to “naturalism” is usually used to rule out an possibility of detecting the activity of God. Such a view is nonsensical given that any God worth His salt would be able to act in a detectable manner – just as detectable as anything an anthropologist or forensic scientist, or even a SETI scientist, would describe as a true artefact of design. The hundreds of discovered fundamental properties of the universe itself are so extremely fine tuned against each other as to strongly suggest purpose and planning behind its design. The very same thing is true of all living things.

          2] Science is about testing hyothesis by experimental observation. If you cant construct an experiment it is not within the domain of science.

          Exactly! So, where is your experimental support, or even your mathematical support, for the creative potential of random mutations and function-based selection (natural selection) at various levels of functional complexity? You like to propose analogies to “life enzymes” and suggest that RM/NS might not be the only mechanism in play, but where is your evidence? your experimental observation?

          It seems to me that you appeal to ignorance with hope that something that is yet unknown will be discovered to prop up your position with some viable mindless naturalistic mechanism. How is this hope for something as yet undiscovered “scientific”?

          3] Science is about documenting the experiment and the results in peer reviewed literature. This is the canonical repository of scientific knowledge. It is not all of human knowledge. It is simply a part of human knowledge; generated by a method accepted by its practitioners. It is not a philosophy or a world view and can be and is performed by people of any and all religious and political views. It is open to all but as a participant you are expected to have the decency to acknowledge the existing knowledge as produced in good faith and a basic platform from which to proceed.

          As we’ve previously discussed, this platform is not open to all of good faith, but is limited to those who blindly accept the popular philosophical paradigm of mainstream science – i.e., mindless naturalistic explanations for ultimate origins of everything. If you do not subscribe to this paradigm, if you wish to promote the hypothesis of intelligent design to explain anything within a living thing, you simply will not be published in mainstream literature.

          Beyond this, good science can be and has been done without publication in mainstream literature. There have been many excellent scientists, as we’ve already discussed, who practiced scientific methodologies largely on their own. You argue that this is the exception and not the rule. Well, the exceptions prove that it can be done and that scientific investigation and good understanding simply is not dependent upon peer review or popular acclaim or approval.




          0
          View Comment
  3. Is Grismer still teaching there? If so, he should have been fired long ago. It is not enough to take away his title as chairman of the biology department, that is a very small step in the right direction.
    His continued employment reveals a major lack of faith among Adventists in general. Shame on LSU!




    0
    View Comment
  4. Hmmm. The chair is gone but not the teacher? Maybe Greer is now being groomed for chairing the Edward C. Allred Center’s chairmanship. After all, it normally takes a full 9 months for certain types of fetuses to evolve into fully human beings. And horse racing has also evolved from a once scandalous vice to a now respectable entrepreneurial mission.




    0
    View Comment
    • Veith promotes many fantastic government conspiracy theories (such as 9/11 conspiracy theories), which detracts from the credibility of the already challenging task of trying to promote creationism. If you’re going to be controversial on one topic, try not to take on a host of other very controversial positions at the same time… at least not publicly.




      0
      View Comment
      • @Sean Pitman: I agree. Dr. Walter Veith is a former university professor, a trained scientist with several published, peer-reviewed journal articles to his credit. I have found his origins apologetics to be well thought out and persuasive, because he speaks with authority as a trained scientist and former Darwinist.

        But unfortunately, as you noted, he has often wandered off into the thickets of conspiracy theorizing, and that undermines his entire ministry.




        0
        View Comment
        • I agree that Veith is at times over zealous in conspiracy theories. None the less, his basic views on many subjects are far closer to historic bible truth than men like Kevin Paulson who denies the doctrine of original sin.

          If we were more zealous in defending basic fundamental bible doctrines concerning sin and atonement, we would have far less confusion and difficulties on many of the other issues the church is dealing with that deny clear biblical revelations.

          If you can not define sin and atonement, how can you possibly define and defend issues that are related to this basic fundamental Christian bible doctrine?

          So, to point out and attack Veith on some minor flaw, while ignoring a major error is hardly the way to correct errors in the church. It is like the pot calling the kettle black. We need to examine our priorities and make sure we know what holds first importance and deal with that, and then we can continue to deal with other departures from scripture.

          In many cases, we have novices trying to correct other novices and in many if not most cases, people need to “listen and learn” before assuming positions of authority. This has been a major problem in the SDA church from the beginning. In many respects, we are a “novice” movement and often assume we are the “highly enlightened” because we know some selective truth like the Sabbath, state of the dead and issues about the second coming, while we remain ignorant of basic Christanity concerning sin and atonement.

          If Walter Veith “undermines” his own ministry by conspiracy theories, and it may well be that he does, it is childs play compared to others who hold positions of influence and authority who deny sin and the atonement in its biblical context.




          0
          View Comment
        • @Bill Sorensen:

          The SDA Church also denies the Catholic concept that we are guilty because Adam sinned. That’s not quite true. We are guilty because we sin – which might seem like semantics, but there’s an important difference in concept here.

          It wouldn’t be fair to judge someone, on a moral level, for something someone else did. Therefore, what we inherited from Adam was not the moral responsibility for his particular sin, but his tendency to sin – his natural affinity for sin. It is only in this sense that we are “born into sin”… as Kevin Paulson correctly argues.




          0
          View Comment
        • Sean, whether we like it or not, we are born guilty because we are sinful by nature. This means we have a nature that is “full of sin” and there is no other way to explain it. If we are “full of sin”, then we act out sin precisely because of this reality. And this is what original sin is all about by definition and application.

          We are born lost, guilty and condemned by virtue of Adam’s choice, not ours. This is how it is and this illustration is clear in showing this fact.

          A bus driver may ignore instructions to not cross a certain bridge over water because it is not safe. In which case, the bridge gives out and all are plunged into the water and will drown. The parallel is this, if the passengers had been consulted, they would have agreed to the drivers decision.

          Now if this were all there was to it, we could surely dispair for our plight and situation. Adam drove us into the river, but would would have agreed since we have the same spirit as Adam.

          None the less, the children of Adam like ourselves, do have a “choice” to repent and acknowledge our guilt and escape the condemnation and guilt imputed to us by way of Adam’s decision. Adam chose for us to be lost and we agreed to his decision as we would have done the same thing.

          But like Adam, who repented, we can now choose Jesus as our atonement and repent the guilt and condemnation we are all under at birth.

          To deny the basic points in the illustration is nothing more than continued rebellion against God and a reflect of Cain and his attitude who refused to bring a lamb because he denied any “guilt” on his part in the fall of his father.

          The bible is so clear in articulating original sin and its effect and dynamic on the human family, it is rebellion to deny it.

          And to claim no one is “guilty” unless they willingly choose to sin in violation of their own conscience, means man is his own law and refuses to acknowledge God’s law unless he decides it is OK with him. So, if I say, “OK, I agree with God’s law” then if I violate it, I am “guilty”. But if I say, “I don’t agree with God’s law” then I am not guilty since my conscience does not condemn me.

          Those who deny original sin are antichrist in doctrine and spirit. The atonement covers sins of ignorance. But according to Kevin, if you are ignorant, you are not sinning. You are innocent. This is absurd and doesn’t even make sense on a human level.




          0
          View Comment
        • We are not in control of our conscience – God is. The Royal Law is written on the hearts of all by God Himself so that men are left without excuse.

          In any case, there’s a difference between being born with the propensity toward sin and being born already guilty of moral wrongdoing.

          The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. Ezekiel 18:20

          See also: Jeremiah 31:30, 2 Kings 14:6, Ezekiel 18:18

          In any case, I don’t want to get into an irrelevant discussion on the subtleties of “original sin” doctrines. I just don’t think such a discussion is remotely relevant to the purpose of this forum.




          0
          View Comment
        • ” In any case, I don’t want to get into an irrelevant discussion on the subtleties of “original sin” doctrines. I just don’t think such a discussion is remotely relevant to the purpose of this forum.”

          Well, Sean, I guess Walter Veith and “conspiracy theories” are?

          Duplicity is not very becoming in a Christian dialogue and I think you should have left Walter Veith out of it instead of casting aspersions on him and his ministry.

          Hopefully, no one is a “sacred cow” when it comes to a discussion of Christian doctrine and who believes what. If we have a public opinion, we are open for discussion in agreement and disagreement.

          And EGW agrees with me, ” Upon all rests the guilt of crucifying the Son of God. To all, forgiveness is freely offered. “Whosoever will” may have peace with God, and inherit eternal life. {CSA 37.5}”

          None of us were there. Yet we are all guilty. We need not participate in any given sin to be guilty of it. She is right and in harmony with the bible.




          0
          View Comment
        • We are guilty of the blood of Jesus because we have all deliberately and knowingly sinned against what we knew was right. It’s not like we didn’t know what we were doing. After all, there is no sin, no moral rebellion, without knowledge of the Royal Law. Sin is based on knowledge.

          “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin” – John 9:41

          see also: John 15:22 and John 15:24

          That is why Jesus died for our deliberate sins, “once for all” – past, present and future. He didn’t just die for Adam’s sin. He suffered and died for what I did in a very personal way – in addition to what Adam did. And, neither Adam nor I sinned in ignorance. We knew the right and we chose to do what we knew was wrong. That’s why it is a moral rebellion against the right.

          You misread the Bible and Ellen White on this issue…

          And, since we’ve already discussed this extensively before, I do not see the need for a repeat.




          0
          View Comment
        • ” We are guilty of the blood of Jesus because we have all deliberately and knowingly sinned against what we knew was right. It’s not like we didn’t know what we were doing. After all, there is no sin, no moral rebellion, without knowledge of the Royal Law. Sin is based on knowledge.”

          You have a very limited view of sin, Sean. A new born baby knows nothing of guilt and condemnation. None the less, a new born baby is guilty of sin before the act. A new born baby is born selfish and guilty of being selfish before the baby manifests any acts of selfishness.

          Just because there is no awareness of guilt does not mean no guilt is present. The spirit of sin always preceeds the act of sin. So a false motive is sin, and the act testifies to this reality.

          So sin is not based on knowledge as you claim. Sin is based on transgression of the law and “the law” could care less if you have any knowledge or not of what is right and/or wrong.

          People are not innocent just because they are ignorant. Not in God’s government, nor in any government of man. If and when ignorance is a factor in pardon, it is never a factor that denies guilt. Nor does ignorance affirm innocence.

          It may be a part of the cause for pardon. But if ignorance equals innocence, then no pardon is necessary. There would be no need for pardon if ignorance equals innocence. In your false theory, there is no need for pardon for sins of ignorance, for according to you, if you are ignorant, you are ipso facto, innocent, and need no pardon.

          In any viable judgment, a person who is accused may be pardoned based on several factors. But if he is not guilty on any level, then he is acquitted, not pardoned. And there is a vast difference between acquittal and pardon.

          Christians who commit sins of ignorance are pardoned by way of the atonement, they are not acquitted because the are innocent. Pardon means guilt and innocence means acquittal because there is no guilt.

          You are fighting the bible and the full meaning of sin and atonement. Original sin is non-negotiable as a clear bible doctrine. We are condemned and guilty because of Adam’s choice, not our own. If we refuse the atonement, we then become guilty by our own choice and only add to the guilt we are already under by refusing the remedy God has provided in His Son.

          No one by passes the atonement on the basis of ignorance claiming ignorance exempts them from the law. If David Read was any kind of lawyer, he would admit this fact and affirm that my position is correct and clearly biblical.




          0
          View Comment
        • @Bill Sorensen: And EGW agrees with me, ” Upon all rests the guilt of crucifying the Son of God. To all, forgiveness is freely offered. “Whosoever will” may have peace with God, and inherit eternal life. {CSA 37.5}”

          This EGW quote can be interpreted either way. For instance, “Because all are guilty through Adam, upon all rests the guilt…” or “Because all have chosen sin, upon all rests the guilt…” This quote is of itself is not clear enough to prove either position. However, the following quote in which EGW quotes an angel is much clearer:

          Said the angel: “If light come, and that light is set aside or rejected, then comes condemnation and the frown of God; but before the light comes, there is no sin, for there is no light for them to reject.” {1T 116.1}

          Bill, it’s not fair to claim that all who reject original sin are in rebellion. The concept of sin is more complicated than the timing of the Sabbath (context of the quote above), and it is clear that God was very gracious towards those that were still growing in their understanding of this simple truth. If God did not consider them rebellious, then it would be reasonable for you to extend the same graciousness to others on the topic of original sin.




          0
          View Comment
        • One thing we know for sure, Mark, is EGW is not writing in a vacuum. So we must consider all she wrote before knowing exactly what she meant. But in the end, it does not matter what she wrote when the bible is clear enough for anyone who wants to know the tru4th.

          Gene, people have convoluted and corrupted many doctrines that in themselves are fundamentally sound and based on scripture. Namely, the law of God, the gospel, nature of man, the Trinity…..etc.

          Just because a biblical concept is corrupted and misapplied, does not negate the doctrine.

          Dr. Ford correctly defines the gospel, and then places his own interpretation on how it should be applied. This in no way negates his definition of the gospel itself.

          And yes, sin and atonement can be somewhat difficult. Not because they are obscure, but because sinful man his a warped view of God, himself, life and briefly every concept of bible truth.

          Sin has corporate implication as well as individual implications. It does not take a “rocket scientist” to see this in the bible. So when Achan sinned, the whole camp was cursed and guilty of sin before God. Why? Because Achan represented the whole community of believers and the whole nation sinned in Achan. And this principle is repeated again and again throughout scripture. None the less, we can each one escape guilt and condemnation if we confess the fact and do all we can to correct the evil.

          Just so, in modern Adventism, we are all guilty of the evil in our church and if we do knowing about it, will be lost and condemned at last. So, when Adam sinned, we all sinned and are guilty because of his choice, not ours. Babies are born condemned and guilty and unless some means of grace is applied, they will be lost.

          The Catholic church may be wrong in the way they deal with original sin. But they are right to understand and recognize the need of forgiveness and grace for new born babies.

          Do you really think babies can go to heaven and by pass the atonement? No one by passes the atonement, not even new born babies. You state…..

          “This teaching proclaimed that we sin because we are sinners, not that we are sinners because we have sinned. This teaching is a major error and is contrary to the Bible.”

          In fact, this teaching is exactly what the bible teaches. “An evil tree can not bring forth good fruit.”

          You view will make us like the Jews who rejected any need to be “born again” and make the SDA church a non-Christian cult. If the SDA church ever accepts your view in any “offical way”, or the teaching of Kevin Paulson, Dennis Priebe, and the late Ralph Larson, I will immeadiately ask my name to be taken off the church books and have my membership removed.

          The SDA church will be nothing but a non-Christian cult and the final antichrist movement contrary to the bible and EGW, who endorses the doctrine of original sin like many other clear biblical teachings the church no longer believes, teaches, or supports.

          The bible is not obscure in supporting the doctrine of original sin or the Trinity. We are born lost, guilty and condemned by way of Adam’s choice, not our own.




          0
          View Comment
        • As an example, animals cannot sin because they are not moral beings. In other words, they have not been given the power to make a choice between right and wrong on a moral level. The same thing would be true for robots. And, the same thing could be said for newborn babies. Newborn babies cannot “sin” because they haven’t yet reached the age of accountability where they consciously understand right from wrong. That is why the SDA Church does not baptize babies – because they are not considered to be moral beings yet. Babies may be born with the propensity or tendency to sin, but that’s not the same thing as having sinned. It would therefore be evil, on the part of God, to punish a baby for a moral failure when the baby is incapable of making moral decisions.

          You see, you confuse the suffering of the guiltless as somehow meaning that the guiltless are actually morally guilty. That’s simply not true. What evil does is cause the suffering of the innocent even though the innocent are still innocent. There is no such thing as corporate salvation. In the same way, there is also no such thing as corporate guilt where my sins are attributed to you and your eternal destiny. All are saved, or lost, on an individual basis. Of course, there are corporate consequences for sin. All may suffer as the result of one person’s sins. However, this isn’t the same thing as all being individually responsible for sinning. That’s not true at all.

          Again, where there is no deliberate rebellion against what is known to be right, there is no sin. The Bible cannot be more clear on this – as I’ve already quoted.

          And, Mrs. White is also very clear. To add to the many passages on this issue already referenced:

          It is not in the power of Satan to force anyone to sin. Sin is the sinner’s individual act. Before sin exists in the heart, the consent of the will must be given, and as soon as it is given, sin is triumphant, and hell rejoices. But there is no excuse for sin, either big or little. – Ellen White, Signs of the Times, Dec. 18, 1893

          I’m sorry, but you’re the one out of line with the traditional Adventist position on this topic – not Kevin Paulson. The Adventists Church does not accept the Augustinian/Calvinistic understanding of original sin, taught in terms of original guilt, but holds, rather, to what could be termed the “total depravity” tradition where we inherited the propensity or natural desire to sin.




          0
          View Comment
        • @Mark Brown: Bill you wrote: “One thing we know for sure, Mark, is EGW is not writing in a vacuum. So we must consider all she wrote before knowing exactly what she meant. But in the end, it does not matter what she wrote when the bible is clear enough for anyone who wants to know the tru4th.”

          I do not see that your statement applies to this quote as EGW was recording what the angel said.

          From the scriptures below, it is not unreasonable to reject the concept of original sin:

          Deut. 24:16 – The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

          Ezek. 18:20 – The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

          John 8:34 – Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

          John 9:41 – Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

          John 15:22 – If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.

          James 1:14-15 – But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

          James 4:17 – Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.

          1John 3:4 – Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.




          0
          View Comment
        • Bill,

          The reason that the RCC baptizes infants is the concept of original sin. SDA church does not believe in that concept.

          The teachings of Augustine opened the doors to the pagan concept of original sin, which taught that the original sin of Adam required the punishment of all the human race. In other words, we are guilty for Adam’s sin. This teaching proclaimed that we sin because we are sinners, not that we are sinners because we have sinned. This teaching is a major error and is contrary to the Bible. While we inherit from Adam sinful flesh and his tendency to sin, the act of sin itself is a volitional act.

          @Bill Sorensen:




          0
          View Comment
        • Those who deny the guilt of original sin advocate false doctrine.

          Babies are born selfish. Yet you claim they are not sinful (full of sin) unless they act out their selfish nature.

          The bible says, “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked…..”

          But you claim this evil heart is not sin and there is no guilt or condemnation unless the individual acts out sin.

          Paul says in Romans 5 that we are all condemned because of Adam’s sin. Rom. 5:12-19. But you claim we are condemned with out guilt.

          David says in Ps. 58:3. “The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they be born speaking lies.”

          Being born in sin and with the spirit of evil it is more than obvious by any objective evaluation, that God Himself imputes sin and guilt to every baby born.

          “Man looketh on the outward appearance, the Lord looketh on the heart.”

          Your superficial view of sin and atonement is a direct attack on the need to be “born again” and undermines the atonement and it full value and meaning.

          And whether the SDA church confesses the doctrine is not relevant as to whether it is true or not. The church does not define doctrine, the bible does. And as for EGW, she clearly and plainly said….

          ” Satan’s Power May Be Broken.–Parents have a more serious charge than they imagine. The inheritance of children is that of sin. Sin has separated them from God. Jesus gave His life that He might unite the broken links to God. As related to the first Adam, men receive from him nothing but guilt and the sentence of death. But Christ steps in and passes over the ground where Adam fell, enduring every test in man’s behalf. . . . Christ’s perfect example and the grace of God are given him to enable him to train his sons and daughters to be sons and daughters of God. It is by teaching them, line upon line, precept upon precept, how to give the heart
          476
          and will up to Christ that Satan’s power is broken. {CG 475.3}”

          Any clear minded and reasonable person can easily see that she knows and understand that guilt is inherited from Adam, and she don’t mean weakness and a propensity to sin in this context.

          You are not fighting me, or EGW. You are challenging the bible and God Himself by a wilfull rejection of the obvious and opting for a delusion you willingly choose to believe. You must twist what is so obviously true and endorsed by EGW that responsible minded individuals will wonder why you close your mind and opt for a limited view of the atonement.

          Your error is simular to the “Moral Influence Theory” that takes a part of the truth to deny the whole of it.

          How true when Jesus said, “Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way, and few there be which go in thereat.”

          “Listen and learn.”




          0
          View Comment
        • What I’m saying is that your position is a Catholic position, opposed to the historical Adventist position on this topic. That fact is quite clear.

          In any case, you’ve had your say, yet again, on this pet topic of yours. Nothing further will be posted on it in this forum. Discussing such topics simply isn’t the purpose of this forum.




          0
          View Comment
        • @David Read: I find Veith’s “theorizing” regarding “conspiracies” to be spot on and on topic.

          There is a great “conspiracy” – otherwise known as “The Great Controversy”. It is the ultimate reality of our rebellious little world today. AND it is the foundation of all of these other problems we deal with.

          AND, IT WILL BE ENDING SOON!




          0
          View Comment
      • Sean,
        Vieth was wrong about about how the World Trade Centers collasped. He was echoing the media at the tims. He should have waited for more info.

        He could still be a guest speaker.

        Some others;
        John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics/Space Physics

        Dr. Steven A. Austin is a field research geologist with a Ph.D. from Penn State University in sedimentary geology

        Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati Ph.D. in Chemistry

        Dr. John Byl Ph.D. in Astronomy

        Larry Vardiman Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science

        Dr. Donald DeYoung Michigan Tech University (B.S., M.S., Physics)
        Iowa State University (Ph.D., Physics)

        Michael Oard B.S. and M.S. degree in atmospheric science

        Dr. John D. Morris Ph.D Geological Engineering

        Dr. Gerald R. “Jerry” Bergman Ph.D. in human biology

        Dr. Heinz Lycklama Bachelor’s degree in Engineering Physics and a Ph. D. degree in experimental Nuclear Physics

        Donald Chittick Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry

        Paul A. Nelson Ph.D. (1998) in the philosophy of biology and evolutionary theory

        John Sanford Ph.D.in plant breeding and plant genetics.

        Dr. Davis Menton Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University Associate Professor of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri (1966-2000)
        Associate Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine (July 2000)

        Dr. Keith H. Wanser B.A. in physics from California State University, an M.A. in physics from the University of California, Irvine, and a Ph.D. in condensed matter physics from the University of California, Irvine.

        Dr. Warner Gitt A director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology

        Jason Lisle, Ph.D. Dr. Lisle graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double-majored in physics and astronomy, and minored in mathematics. He did graduate work at the University of Colorado where he earned a Master�s degree and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics.

        Dr Andy C. McIntosh is a Professor (the highest teaching/research rank in U.K. university hierarchy) in Combustion Theory at Leeds University, U.K. His Ph.D. was in aerodynamics.

        Dr. Arthur Jones B.S. (Hons) from the University of Birmingham in biology; an M.Ed. from Bristol University and a Ph.D. in biology from the University of Birmingham.

        @Sean Pitman:




        0
        View Comment
        • @gene fortner: That’s a good list, Gene, but do not forget Arthur Chadwick (Ph.D, U. of Miami, geology/sedimentology) and Lee Spencer (Ph.D, biology/paleontology, Loma Linda) and Kurt Wise (Ph.D, geology, Harvard) and Marcus Ross (Ph.D, paleontology, U.R.I.).

          The first two are Seventh-day Adventists and very strong creationists; the second two are creationists. Kurt Wise is a good friend of Art Chadwick and has come to SDA-sponsored events before.




          0
          View Comment
        • David,

          I did not forget them, I got tired of typing.

          A program that addresses the major attacks on creationism should be put together. We are all familiar with the standard attacks.

          Creationism Seminar

          Perhaps a presentation with Q/A

          Validity of the Bible
          What Genesis really says.
          Archeological Evidence
          Table of Nations
          Completed Prophecy
          Resurrection of Jesus
          Biology
          DNA evidence
          Intelligent Design
          Survey of neo-Darwinism
          Geology
          Noah’s Flood
          Fossil Record
          Cosmology

          ????

          Keep it simple, only use well proven presentations.

          @David Read:




          0
          View Comment
        • @gene fortner: What I like about your list of topics, Gene, is that it points out that many disciplines are implicated in the necessary change of worldview. It isn’t just biology and geology, although those are the main ones. History, archeology, anthropology and other disciplines should also be approached from a biblical worldview. The biblical worldview should pervade the entire curriculum.




          0
          View Comment
        • @gene fortner:
          And you could add economics and technology to your very extensive list. And yes, these two subject areas can use proven and historically supported evidence in line with archeology, science,biology,cosmogony and geology.




          0
          View Comment
        • @gene fortner: I don’t think anyone really knows what powers were being exercised on 9/11. Clearly the airliners were involved.

          It was an event that changed the world in ways that top-down powers would yearn for.

          No point in speculation… I think Veith probably was mistaken to do that deep dive and it seems that he has quietly backed away from it.

          The thing we must focus on is to “Turn your eyes upon Jesus….” Clearly, we are in “the last days”.




          0
          View Comment
  5. It is easy to dismiss someone simply by labeling them as a “conspiracy theorist”. Look up “JFK’s speech on Secret Societies” on YouTube and ask your self what was he talking about? The speech supports much of what Dr. Veith promotes, and as we get ready to honor the 50th anniversary of his assassination, once again, what was JFK talking about?




    0
    View Comment
    • It is one thing to recognize the existence of secret societies. Lots of secret societies exist all over the place. It is quite another thing, however, to attribute an attack on the American people, like 9/11, to a massive US government conspiracy and coverup… under the guidance of the “brilliant” evil mind of George W. Bush 😉

      Don’t get me wrong. I personally like Walter Veith very much. I’ve had lunch with him on a couple occasions as he is a good friend of my wife’s family. He is also the one who originally got me interested in writing about the creation/evolution controversy. I like many of his videos and think he is an entertaining speaker. However, I also believe that he has significantly limited his ministry and his ability to effectively make a positive impact for good in the church by publicly promoting so many outlandish conspiracy theories. Such activity dramatically reduces the credibility and influence that he could have had…




      0
      View Comment
  6. It will be interesting to see how much power John Perumal will be given, and will exercise, in reshaping the biology department. He should have veto power over new hires, and he should be able to recommend whether contracts for untenured professors are renewed or not, and whether tenure is granted or not. Typically the academic dean or provost has some say over this as well, but the department chair’s power is considerable.




    0
    View Comment
  7. I think LSU has an absolute right to determine whom it hires. It should make it abundantly clear that it is endorsing and teaching creationism not biology. As long as the world knows that religious doctrine is controlling the academic freedom of LSU’s scientists, I don’t see any problem.




    1
    View Comment
    • And how is “biology” in conflict with creationism? In fact, one can teach biology without any discussion of origins at all. Darwinism adds absolutely nothing when it comes to understanding biology and how living things work. Why the need to shove the philosophical/religious position of neo-Darwinian naturalism down the throats of our own students? – in a science classroom? It would be much more fitting to talk about Darwinism in a class on popular religions or philosophies.

      Again, neither you nor anyone else even knows how the Darwinian mechanism works beyond very low levels of functional complexity. Yet, you want you just-so stories promoted as “science” anyway? Based on what evidence?




      0
      View Comment
    • @george: You are absolutely right. Sean has been calling for transparency and truth in advertising. We should now be totally transparent in what is happening. Fundamentalist religious belief is being prioritized over any process of science as a process of understanding the natural world by natural law.

      The philistines have indeed breaching the wall of open enquiry that is the academe and LSU is on its way to being a madrasse. We now have a push to introduce the supernatural as the basis for understanding the natural world. We are now moving to deprecate science and scientific knowledge in a way that has not been seen in Universities for the last 150 years. To move biology teaching at LSU out of the hands of those with scientific credentials (Scopus lists a h index of 17 for Grismer) to a teacher of science whose only objective credentials in science is a couple of papers, albeit well cited in 1999 and h index of 2 (scopus John V Perumal). Criteria of selection is moving from academic excellence to religious orthodoxy and an adherence to one and only one particular literalistic view of Genesis.
      I know of no public tertiary institution in the world admitting to University status that would have such a low bar of scientific excellence for head of a science department.

      Southern does way better than that in terms of recognizing academic excellence. But thanks to David, Sean and their ilk the pickings are likely to be very thin as what self respecting scientist would like to have a job of professor of science based on adherence to the prevailing views of a religious organization.

      Sean is of course right about the Darwinism and biology. Just as Sean recognizes evolution speciation and natural selection as part of evolutionary biology, we can teach the process and principles of biology while purging Darwins name from the record but we perhaps should then also purge Boyle, Newton, Ptolemy and Copernicus. Science can be done without reference to any one person but it does lose something of its historical context in the process.




      1
      View Comment
      • Sean is of course right about the Darwinism and biology. Just as Sean recognizes evolution speciation and natural selection as part of evolutionary biology, we can teach the process and principles of biology while purging Darwins name from the record but we perhaps should then also purge Boyle, Newton, Ptolemy and Copernicus. Science can be done without reference to any one person but it does lose something of its historical context in the process.

        You know very well that I only recognize very limited forms of evolution at very low levels of functional complexity – as do all creation scientists. Evolutionary biology that is based on random mutations and natural selection, while real, is far far more limited than philosophical neo-Darwinists, like you, wish to admit. That is why you feel forced to dream of some kind of “life enzymes” when you are backed into a corner regarding the creative potential of random mutations and natural selection. You certainly have no examples of this mechanism doing anything beyond very very low levels of functional complexity and you have no idea how it could possibly work at higher levels this side of a practical eternity of time. You just have this fabulous faith, based on no evidence whatsoever, that it must work somehow with some kind of “life enzymes” helping out…

        Really now, this is nothing like Newtonian physics. This is just-so story telling…

        Sean Pitman
        http://www.DetectingDesign.com




        0
        View Comment
        • @Sean Pitman:
          If I recall correctly

          1] We have been over dog and human allelic variation in some detail here before. You agreed that more than 90% of allelic variation including the SNP present in the current human populations must have arisen as new mutation since there was a minimal gene pool of maximally 4 alleles at any locus in the dog kind and 10 in humans. any allelic variation beyond this has arisen by a miracle or by natural process. For some inexplicable reason You deny miracles to explain the biology of the post flood world so it must be chance.
          Am I wrong in this?

          2] Most who accept a process of evolution beyond the species level would accept that accumulation of such natural processes are responsible for the variety of life we see now. You insist that these process are insufficient based on a particular reading of a sacred text. Is that correct?

          2] You can insist on assigning to me some concept of “life enzymes” as you wish but I would interpret that as an unwillingness to actually engage with the question which was phrased as an analogy with enzymatic process in particular the production of H2O2. On the bald probabilities H2O and O2 are extremely unlikely to produce H2O2. Is that not correct?
          That we do find H2O2 in biological system and can produce it in bulk by chemical processes suggests that the presence of H2O2 makes any statistical argument about its impossibility void.
          Is that not so?

          You argue from a simplistic model of probabilities in sequence space that new complex functional molecules cannot exist. They do. I am asking do you have absolute knowledge of all the possibilities for the trajectory of sequence change in an individual molecule within a highly complex collection of organic material within a cell?
          You cannot conceive of it but assume that you can nonetheless deny all possibility. I guess it does fit with your assumption that you can know everything in science or religion.




          1
          View Comment
        • 1] We have been over dog and human allelic variation in some detail here before. You agreed that more than 90% of allelic variation including the SNP present in the current human populations must have arisen as new mutation since there was a minimal gene pool of maximally 4 alleles at any locus in the dog kind and 10 in humans. any allelic variation beyond this has arisen by a miracle or by natural process. For some inexplicable reason You deny miracles to explain the biology of the post flood world so it must be chance.
          Am I wrong in this?

          Why are you repeating this stuff? Allelic variation at low levels of functional complexity can and does happen easily and quickly – without the need to invoke intelligent design. Everyone agrees here. The disagreement is over novel functionality beyond very low levels of functional complexity – as you already know.

          2] Most who accept a process of evolution beyond the species level would accept that accumulation of such natural processes are responsible for the variety of life we see now. You insist that these process are insufficient based on a particular reading of a sacred text. Is that correct?

          As you know, my argument is that the process of random mutations and natural selection is insufficient beyond very low levels because of the increasing size of non-beneficial gaps in sequence space with each step up the ladder of minimum structural threshold requirements (the definition of higher and higher level systems). It is a statistical problem – as you are fully aware. That is why you proposed your “life enzymes” as a possible solution to the statistical limitations of the Darwinian mechanism. The problem, of course, is that your “life enzymes” don’t exist as far as anyone knows. And, no Scriptural support is needed to reach this conclusion.

          The popular conclusion that “natural processes are responsible for the variety of life we see now” simply isn’t a scientific conclusion. There are no examples of this beyond very low levels of functional complexity and there isn’t even a viable statistical model that is remotely tenable beyond low levels. What you have left, then, is an extrapolation of low-level examples that isn’t based on empirical evidence or science of any kind when it comes to your proposed mechanism of random mutations and natural selection. And, your “life enzymes” aren’t known to exist…

          2] You can insist on assigning to me some concept of “life enzymes” as you wish but I would interpret that as an unwillingness to actually engage with the question which was phrased as an analogy with enzymatic process in particular the production of H2O2. On the bald probabilities H2O and O2 are extremely unlikely to produce H2O2. Is that not correct? That we do find H2O2 in biological system and can produce it in bulk by chemical processes suggests that the presence of H2O2 makes any statistical argument about its impossibility void. Is that not so?

          The statistical argument can only be explained when real enzymes that are able to assist in crossing the gap distances (which would require sizable pre-existing functional/informational complexity by the way) are known exist. Any enzymatic process that is required to put parts together in a specific way at a given level of functional complexity would itself have to exist at the same or higher level of functional complexity. It’s like arguing that complex macines, like cars or airplanes, can be produced by mindless “enzymes” (in the form of mindless robots), thereby proving that intelligent design is not required to explain cars or airplanes. Of course, this argument is ludicrous, as I point out in my book you supposedly read, since the robots themselves are at just as high a level of functional complexity as the cars and/or airplanes they produce and had to pre-exist the things that they make. In other words, such “enzymes” if they are also at a high level of functional complexity, would require deliberate intelligence to explain. That is why even if your car were entirely produced by mindless robots, the credit would still go to intelligent design, not the mindless robots.

          Beyond this, you have no such “enzymes” to explain biological systems beyond very low levels. Therefore, regardless of which way you wish to argue the point, the statistical argument remains valid. In the absence of such “life enzymes” the only type of “enzyme” that can explain how anything can cross the non-beneficial gaps in sequence space is intelligent design. This is the only viable mechanism that is known to exist that can do the job. Certainly natural selection cannot be involved since natural selection cannot select among equally non-beneficial sequences. Yet, you still propose that something other than intelligent design must be able to do the job. Again, such a proposal is not scientific since it is not testable or potentially falsifiable. It has no predictive value at all.

          As another “analogy” consider that your argument could be used against SETI just as easily. Let’s say SETI scientists find a clearly artificial radio signal coming in from just the right area of outer space. They declare that they’ve found very good evidence for the existence of ETI. But, according to your argument, since they don’t know all there is to know about how such seemingly artificial signals could be made, the most likely conclusion is that they are wrong and that the artificial radio signal really isn’t artificial at all, but is in fact the result of some as yet unknown mindless naturalistic process.

          You see the problem here? You can explain anything and everything, and therefore nothing, with your argument because your argument is an appeal to ignorance – to what might be discovered in the future. That’s an anti-scientific argument. Such an argument undermines all scientific rationality for any conclusion beyond the one you personally want to be true…

          You argue from a simplistic model of probabilities in sequence space that new complex functional molecules cannot exist. They do.

          Yes, they do exist, but they do not exist because of random mutations and function-based selection. Such a mechanism cannot explain higher-level systems that require a minimum of thousands of specifically arranged amino acid residues.

          I am asking, do you have absolute knowledge of all the possibilities for the trajectory of sequence change in an individual molecule within a highly complex collection of organic material within a cell? You cannot conceive of it but assume that you can nonetheless deny all possibility. I guess it does fit with your assumption that you can know everything in science or religion.

          Again, your request for some kind of absolute demonstration or absolute proof simply isn’t scientific. Science isn’t based on absolute knowledge. Science is based on taking what little you do know and using that to predict the future – in a testable potentially falsifiable manner that produces useful predictive value. You should know this since you are a practicing scientist. Yet, you choose not to remember this fact of science when it doesn’t suite your personal philosophical position?

          What you seem to be suggesting is that because there is a gap in knowledge that some as yet unknown naturalistic pathway or mindless mechanism might be in play – and that such a process therefore is therefore likely to be responsible. This is like appealing to the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Celestial Teapot or some garden fairies as an explanation. That’s not a scientific argument. How is this not clear to you? You need some empirical evidence here if you wish to be scientific in your thinking. You need to present some kind of pathway that actually exists in sequence space or you need to present some kind of mechanism that explains how the very clear non-beneficial gap distances are crossed, our could reasonably be crossed – beyond very very low levels of functional complexity within a reasonable amount of time. If you haven’t done this, which you haven’t, you don’t have a scientific theory or even a scientific hypothesis. What you have is wishful thinking and just-so story telling. That’s it.

          So, where is your evidence, your empirical evidence, to support your conclusion that a mindless mechanism of any kind was likely responsible for the creation of higher level biological systems?

          Sean Pitman
          http://www.DetectingDesign.com




          0
          View Comment
      • Paul and George

        FYI

        A Concise Guide
        to Understanding
        Evolutionary Theory 101

        You can observe a lot by just watching.
        – Yogi Berra

        Advice from Paul

        Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge – by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith.
        I Timothy 6:20-21
        Song of the True Scientist

        O Lord, how manifold are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all. The earth is full of Your possessions . . . . May the glory of the Lord endure forever. May the Lord rejoice in His works . . . . I will sing to the Lord s long as I live; I will sing praise to my God while I have my being. May my meditation be sweet to Him; I will be glad in the Lord. May sinners be consumed from the earth, and the wicked be no more. Bless the Lord, O my soul! Praise the Lord!
        from Psalm 104

        http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201105.htm#cgtuet
        @Pauluc:




        0
        View Comment
      • @Pauluc: Since no creationist could land a job as chairman of a biology department at a public university, it seems entirely appropriate that no Darwinist should be given the chairmanship of a biology department of a Seventh-day Adventist college.

        The SDA educational system doesn’t exist to expensively duplicate the public university system. It exists to provide a uniquely biblical and Seventh-day Adventist education to interested young people. If mainstream origins science is correct in its assumptions and conclusions about our origins, the entire enterprise of Seventh-day Adventism is an utterly foolish waste of time. So at Adventist institutions, our professors should assume that Darwinistic science is false, and that creationistic science is true (just the reverse of how it is done at public universities), and proceed accordingly.




        0
        View Comment
        • @David Read:

          just to be perfectly clear;

          1] You wish that Adventists should not be at all proficient in their chosen field of endeavour or vocation? What happened to EG White citing of the old testament statement “head and not the tail” as applicable to education?

          2] Are you saying that no creationist is sufficiently scientifically accomplished to get a head of department position in a secular institution?

          I would suggest you look at John Ashtons book “In 6 days”. You will find I believe that Bergman is indeed a professor and head of department.

          3] The criteria for leadership is good science not adherence to a particular theory. You are confusing science with religion if you think there is virtue in an orthodoxy.

          4] You still do not understand that science is about the natural world and methodological naturalism. This is the assumption of the scientific method. You will of course be considered a woolly thinker and not considered a good scientist if you introduce miracles as part of science but your religious beliefs are irrelevant to the practice of science.

          People like Francis Collins are unashamedly evangelical Christians and are at the very top of science. A religious belief in God as creator is irrelevant to science and represents no barrier to academic status no matter what you may imagine.

          5] It seems clear you do not want any Adventist educational institution with University status. What you want is arise writ large.




          1
          View Comment
        • @Pauluc: I do not agree that science must be naturalistic, but if that is your bottom line, it will not trouble me much where it concerns most day-to-day science–the study of current, repeating phenomena. But a rigid naturalism applied to origins morphs into philosophical atheism. Hence, mainstream origins science is not science but atheistic apologetics. This is what should not be done at an Adventist school, but sadly what has been the rule at La Sierra.




          0
          View Comment
      • @Pauluc:
        I had to laugh. You wrote,

        Southern does way better than that in terms of recognizing academic excellence. But thanks to David, Sean and their ilk the pickings are likely to be very thin as what self respecting scientist would like to have a job of professor of science based on adherence to the prevailing views of a religious organization.

        Yes, Southern probably has more qualified short-age creationist candidates. Certainly Southern has more qualified short-age creationists. However, I don’t think it is David, Sean, or their “ilk” that caused that. Rather, it was La Sierra’s deliberate selection against short age. Oh, well.




        0
        View Comment
    • George,

      Creationism is a doctrine based on the Bible, not approiate for a biology course.

      However, Intelligent Design is.

      New Infographic “The Science of ID: Biochemistry” Beautifully Showcases ID’s Use of Scientific Method Robert Crowther September 27, 2013 11:35 AM | Permalink This infographic is a visual reworking of an excerpt from the Discovering Intelligent Design curriculum. For a limited time, order the curriculum and you’ll get free copies of Illustra Media’s science documentaries Metamorphosis and Flight! “The Science of ID: Biochemistry” infographic shows how the theory of intelligent design follows the scientific method (Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusion) in the discipline of biochemistry. To learn more about the science of ID, check out the new science curriculum at http://www.DiscoveringID.org. – See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/post_41077191.html#sthash.m822v9ws.dpuf
      @george:




      0
      View Comment
    • @george:
      “I think LSU has an absolute right to determine whom it hires. It should make it abundantly clear that it is endorsing and teaching creationism not biology. As long as the world knows that religious doctrine is controlling the academic freedom of LSU’s scientists, I don’t see any problem.”

      Based on your argument, George, I think LSU and other SDA universities should make it abundantly clear if they are teaching evolutionary theory as a doctrine in the classrooms. As long as the whole world knows, yes, even parents who want to send your youngsters and students who want to attend a CHRISTian institution that evolutionary theory, which has never been proven, is controlling the academic freedom of anyone working at an Adventist University and that, in fact, evolutionary theory does not ALLOW for any academic freedom, I don’t see any problem. In that case WE SHOULD NOT come with the patronizing nonsense that Adventist Universities are CHRISTian or that Adventists are Sabbath keepers. This has not been left open for us. Both CHRISTian and Sabbath points back to Creation and Creation Science. Agreeing with mainstream or experts on evolution does not make it right. For too long creationist academics have been sidelined by ‘evolutionary experts’ and ‘mainstream thinking’. There is no ACADEMIC FREEDOM under those circumstances. You only have to look at the myopic view presented in many academic journals to know that ‘peer review’ simply means an assault on academic freedom of anyone willing to publish from a creation and therefore, contrary to evolution theory.




      0
      View Comment
    • @george:
      “I think LSU has an absolute right to determine whom it hires. It should make it abundantly clear that it is endorsing and teaching creationism not biology. As long as the world knows that religious doctrine is controlling the academic freedom of LSU’s scientists, I don’t see any problem.”

      Based on your argument, George, I think LSU and other SDA universities should make it abundantly clear if they are teaching evolutionary theory as a doctrine in the classrooms. As long as the whole world knows that EVOLUTIONARY theory is controlling the academic freedom of anyone working at an Adventist University and that, in fact, evolutionary theory does not ALLOW for any academic freedom, I don’t see any problem. As long as we do not come with the patronizing nonsense that Adventist Universities are CHRISTian or that Adventists are Sabbath keepers. This has not been left open for us. You merely have to read through Academic Journals to see which theories and experts control mainstream. These theorists and experts have taken ‘peer review’ to a whole new level: as long as an academic do not agree with their views, the ‘door keepers’ keep




      0
      View Comment
  8. @David Read, Can ET or Advindicate get an interview with somebody who actually knows, first hand, what went on with this AAA accreditation? What “deals” were made and by whom, why, and with what “strings” attached?




    0
    View Comment
  9. “Darwinism adds absolutely nothing when it comes to understanding biology and how living things work.”

    Only according to creationists not biologists as recognized by the scientific community.




    0
    View Comment
    • If you were correct in this statement, then you would be able to point out the clear scientific explanation for how the Darwinian mechanism works to produce something beyond very very low levels of functional complexity. Where is this evidence? The paper you presented doesn’t even address function-based selection. The fact of the matter is that there are no examples of higher-level evolution and, statistically, it’s impossible to achieve evolution beyond the level of 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues this side of a practical eternity of time.

      Therefore, a very very good understanding of biology is not at all dependent upon neo-Darwinism. Not at all. Quite the opposite in fact. A very good understanding of biology clearly shows the significant creative limitations of random mutations and natural selection (a function-based selection mechanism). If you knew more about biology you’d be able to grasp this relative simple concept. Pauluc seems to at least understand the concept itself, but is unwilling to admit the implications. That is why he proposed his “life enzymes” as a way to try to get around this otherwise overwhelming and fundamental problem for the Darwinian perspective – even though he has no evidence for his “life enzymes” beyond wishful thinking and his chosen philosophical position…




      0
      View Comment
  10. Another excellent scientist is Dr. Christina Harris with her doctorate in chemistry and original perspectives on origins from the biochemistry side of things. Direct, calm, clear, and articulate, she delivers very credible lectures.




    0
    View Comment
    • @Ben:
      I am not sure what role you are suggesting for this person in an academic environment in a department of science.
      Certainly at my university she would not qualify for appointment at anything beyond lecturer the very lowest academic status.

      The expectation of a professor (teaching and research) is;

      Total publications 6-12 per year
      cummulative impact factor 17-45
      Research income $185-750,000 per year
      Applied measures $55-250,000 per year
      HDR student counts 3.5-6

      A Head of Department is expected to guide the teaching and development of an academic department and to be internationally recognized in his/her field. This is rarely if ever someone below professor status.

      I suspect that some here who would wish to tell academics what to think and do have little appreciation of what this actually means and have little understanding of how far they wish LSU biology to deviate from the norm for open intellectual activity in the academe.




      1
      View Comment
      • Most of us know that President Eisenhower, in his farewell speech, warned of the danger of the “military-industrial complex”. Regardless of your particular stand on military spending, there is no doubt that he was substantially right about the enormous abuse of power and fraud in the defense industry.
        Less known is the Eisenhower’s second warning in the speech.
        Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
        Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. [emphasis mine]
        A remarkably succinct and accurate prediction of the situation we face today.
        ClimateGate is the tip of the iceberg of the corrupt influence of our scientific elite on public policy, ranging from censorship of honest discussion of evolution in our schools to the ‘Cap and Trade’ boondoggle based on fabricated global warming science to the fraud and political power-play shaping up in Copenhagen to self-enriching pressure by scientists and industry to exempt human embryonic stem cell research from traditional ethical constraints on destroying human life.
        We ignore Eisenhower’s warning, and the overwhelming evidence before us now, at our own peril.

        Eisenhower was right!!
        From The Scientist: Science is “an elitist sport now”?
        October 22, 2013 Posted by NewsunderNews, Peer review
        1 Comment

        Further to peer review is bust (The Economist), a biomedical researcher-turned-writer weighs in with another issue, elitism:
        … in the West, we now insist on only hiring scientists who have published in top-tier journals. If you suggest to any of the top institutions that this policy is in place they will vehemently deny it, even though the publication history of their recent hires suggests otherwise. This is also a highly unethical practice as it pretty much excludes most of the world from participating in research at this level. Indeed, according to a conversation I had with the PI of a very well-funded lab in the U.S., to produce enough data to publish in these journals can cost well over $1 million dollars per paper. This is an elitist sport now. “We are an equal opportunity employer” no longer applies. “We employ people who have a science lineage only” seems more appropriate. By that I mean those who have come from wealthy labs who could afford to publish in the journals that are deemed acceptable.
        Good luck getting a new but strongly supported theory, accepted only by the proverbial five per cent, a fair trial in an environment of this type. No wonder we keep hearing the same old same old ain’t so.
        http://www.uncommondescent.com/peer-review/from-the-scientist-science-is-an-elitist-sport-now/
        @Pauluc:




        0
        View Comment
  11. I may be wrong but I seriously doubt there was any sort of secret conspiracy in the change of leadership within the department. Academic departments often change their chair every few years on a rotating basis, with each professor in the department expected to serve sooner or later. Professors are usually much more interested in research and teaching than becoming administrators. That’s exactly why they’re professors and not administrators! It’s difficult, if not impossible, to be great at teaching, research and administration. Something has to give, and given the choice, most professors would prefer not to be burdened with attending extra meetings with other faculty members, students and parents, having to sign a plethora of documents, and other time-consuming administrative chores. Such professors reluctantly accept the position as their responsibility when their colleagues ask them to, and do not consider it a promotion, even though the pay increases slightly.

    So what really happened at LSU? Maybe Lee Grismer wanted to be the chair of his department and was removed due to some extrinsic political maneuvering, or maybe he never aspired to be the chair but accepted it after being asked to by his colleagues and happily handed the reins to John Perumal after taking his turn for a couple of years. It’s obvious that most if not all of those commenting above have no idea what happened, and are merely speculating. I myself don’t know, so I’m not going to jump to any conclusions.




    0
    View Comment
  12. Sean Pitman: What you seem to be suggesting is that because there is a gap in knowledge that some as yet unknown naturalistic pathway or mindless mechanism might be in play – and that such a process therefore is therefore likely to be responsible. This is like appealing to the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Celestial Teapot or some garden fairies as an explanation.

    Interesting statement. One might consider it a classical example of projection. I do not pretend to know much of the immensity of existing human knowledge much of which is documented in the scientific literature. I admit I am ignorant on many things but on the possibility of a natural law explanation for much of the physical universe I appeal only to the history of science which has for the last 300 years progressively explained the natural world by natural process and natural law without recourse to miracles. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in modern evidence based medicine of which you are of course a part. Why if you no longer explain disease in terms of humours, spirits and demons do you not admit to the same processes in other areas of biology? To me it seems blindingly obvious.

    It is you not me that is appealing to supernatural explanations after you conclude, based on incomplete knowledge and data that some things that most of science for the last 150 years has considered likely of natural cause is naturally impossible and can only be explained by a celestial intelligent designer.




    1
    View Comment
    • Interesting statement. One might consider it a classical example of projection.

      How is it an example of projection? You are in fact suggesting that the answer may lie undiscovered somewhere, so it really doesn’t matter that you don’t know what it is yet. You are confident, in any case, that the answer will be found. How is this a scientific position? Science isn’t based on what might be found in the future. Science is based on what is already in hand – what is already known.

      The conclusion that a particular phenomenon is most likely a true artefact of design isn’t based on what might be known in the future. It is based on what is known right now. Therefore, it isn’t I who am invoking the GoG argument – it’s you. I know it’s ironic that you, “the scientist”, feel the need to invoke the GoG argument, but you clearly are doing so.

      I do not pretend to know much of the immensity of existing human knowledge much of which is documented in the scientific literature. I admit I am ignorant on many things but on the possibility of a natural law explanation for much of the physical universe I appeal only to the history of science which has for the last 300 years progressively explained the natural world by natural process and natural law without recourse to miracles. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in modern evidence based medicine of which you are of course a part. Why if you no longer explain disease in terms of humours, spirits and demons do you not admit to the same processes in other areas of biology? To me it seems blindingly obvious.

      Oh, so now you’re appealing to history as your basis of support for some as yet unknown and undiscovered mindless mechanism? Because history has proven that such explanations are always eventually found for all phenomena that were once thought to be the result of deliberate design?

      Again, how is this “scientific”? How is this position testable and potentially falsifiable? This position of the inevitable discovery of some as yet unknown mechanism is not scientific since it is not testable in a potentially falsifiable manner. It may be verifiable, but that’s not what makes a hypothesis scientific. A scientific position cannot be based on what might be found in the future, but upon what is currently in hand right now.

      In any case, I knew that you would present this argument. That is why, in my previous response to you, I explained that this argument of yours undercuts all efforts to detect design behind anything. If accepted, it effectively undercuts science itself. Again, let’s say that SETI scientists discover what they claim is a clear example of an artefactual radio signal coming from outer space. You could take your very same argument and say, “There’s no way that you can be absolutely sure of this conclusion because history has shown that all such apparent artifacts will one day be proven to be the result of some as yet unknown mindless naturalistic mechanism.”

      You see the problem? You could argue the very same thing for my classic example of a highly symmetrical polished granite 1 x 1 x 1 meter polished granite cube found on Mars. In fact, given your position here, it would be impossible to present you with anything that you would accept as being a true artefact of deliberate design because you could always argue that you are ignorant of all knowledge and therefore cannot accept the artefact hypothesis for anything until you become omniscient.

      Again, this is a ridiculous non-scientific position being promoted, ironically, by a man who does science for a living…

      It is you not me that is appealing to supernatural explanations after you conclude, based on incomplete knowledge and data that some things that most of science for the last 150 years has considered likely of natural cause is naturally impossible and can only be explained by a celestial intelligent designer.

      I never argued for the identity of the designer from a scientific perspective. What I argued for is intelligent design of a true artefact. You’re the one arguing for some as yet unknown and undiscovered mechanism which you claim must be there because of the history of detecting such mechanisms. Again, your position is the one that is not just unscientific, it is anti-scientific. Your position undermines the very process of science and scientific reasoning. It is an irrational position that depends and actually invokes omniscience as the only thing that can oppose or potentially falsify your position. You want absolutely definitive proof before you’ll change your mind. That, my friend, is a philosophical faith-based position – not a true science that is based, not on absolute proof, but upon the weight of evidence that is currently in hand.




      0
      View Comment
      • @Sean Pitman:

        You win Sean. I am weary and overwhelmed by column inches, prolixity and a sense of futility.

        You of course are right and I as a “Mr Scientist” know nothing of science or the process and method of science. But I am in good company with the many who have been unable to inform you of anything beyond what you know or to give you pause in your mission to destroy science and scientists at LSU. Adventism is truly entering its dark ages.

        Somehow I doubt the affectation “my friend” but will accept it in good faith.




        0
        View Comment
  13. Pingback: Dr. Paul Cameron and the God of the Gaps | Educate Truth

  14. @ Gene

    “However, Intelligent Design is.”

    In other words there is intelligent design in death, disease and senescence, right? All those pathogens and predators were intelligently right?




    0
    View Comment
  15. “Therefore, it isn’t I who am invoking the GoG argument – it’s you.”

    Really Pard,

    You mean there are no gaps or leaps of faith to get to your 6 day fiat creation YLC position? I know, it’s the weight of the evidence you have on your side that negates that ole GoG for you. Your double standard in this regard is so blatant it stands out like a platypus’s duckbill without teeth 🙂




    0
    View Comment
    • The GoG argument is one that invokes an explanation that is not tested or testable to explain a given phenomenon. My hypothesis of intelligent design is testable in a potentially falsifiable manner. All one has to do is demonstrate a non-intelligent natural mechanism to explain the phenomenon and my hypothesis is neatly falsified. This is not true of Paul’s position where he argues for some future discovery to explain the phenomenon. That position is not testable or falsifiable. It is therefore a true GoG argument…

      See the difference?

      Sean Pitman
      http://www.DetectingDesign.com




      0
      View Comment
      • @Sean Pitman:

        Im sorry Sean but your whole critique seems to be based on a specious argument on your part.

        I said that Science is based on methodological naturalism which means

        1] Natural law explanations and not the miraculous are the provenance of science.

        2] If you cannot couch the question in terms of an hypothesis with testable natural mechanism it is not science.

        3] Science is circumscribed and limited. There are many questions outside of science and natural mechanism.

        4] Natural mechanism has been successful in understanding the natural world and only the natural world and is likely to be so in the future.

        This you construe to be an argument for a God of the Gap. To sustain that argument however you have to
        1] first redefine science and natural mechanism as God an extremely idiosyncratic definition of God but necessary if you are to attribute to me a invocation of God as an explanation for any gaps

        2] claim that I am arguing that everything that is unknown is within the domain of science or “my God”

        This requires you to attribute to me philosophical naturalism, which you have ,dishonestly I believe, done. Completely ignoring that I have repeatedly and consistently said that natural mechanism is concerned with process in the natural world and nothing more.

        You have redefined the accepted definition of science to claim I am using it as a universal explanation and redefined science as all possible knowledge and now suggest to George that

        Intelligent design is right by default unless someone else can prove it wrong.




        1
        View Comment
        • Im sorry Sean but your whole critique seems to be based on a specious argument on your part.

          I said that Science is based on methodological naturalism which means

          1] Natural law explanations and not the miraculous are the provenance of science.

          Is human-level design “miraculous”? or outside of “natural law”?

          Where am I arguing for the “miraculous” any more than a SETI scientist would be arguing for the miraculous when arguing that a certain type of radio signal or granite rock is a true artefact of intelligent design?

          2] If you cannot couch the question in terms of an hypothesis with testable natural mechanism it is not science.

          I agree. The hypothesis is that only an intelligent designer of some kind (doesn’t have to be a supernatural designer) produced the object or phenomenon in question. That’s it. This hypothesis is testable and potentially falsifiable. All one has to do to effectively falsify this hypothesis is show a mindless natural mechanism producing something similar.

          3] Science is circumscribed and limited. There are many questions outside of science and natural mechanism.

          Such as? Upon what rational basis does one choose to believe someone or some book who claims to have superhuman powers or origins? This seems to me to be an empirical question that requires empirical evidence and rational arguments. This isn’t a subjective question regarding the meaning of life or if you enjoy vanilla ice cream…

          4] Natural mechanism has been successful in understanding the natural world and only the natural world and is likely to be so in the future.

          Is a highly symmetrical polished granite cube not within the natural world? Is it not a clear artefact of intelligent design? Is this conclusion not supported by methodological naturalism? Is this conclusion therefore somehow outside of the realm of science?

          This you construe to be an argument for a God of the Gap. To sustain that argument however you have to

          1] first redefine science and natural mechanism as God an extremely idiosyncratic definition of God but necessary if you are to attribute to me a invocation of God as an explanation for any gaps

          Your “god” of the gaps is not a personal god, but mindless nature. You plug in this mindless god into any gap where it is not yet known how any mindless natural process could have done the job. Yet, you argue that some future discovery will explain this current gap in knowledge with a demonstration of how mindless nature actually does it. That is your version of the GoG argument.

          The ID-only hypothesis, on the other hand, is not a GoG argument since it is testable and potentially falsifiable. This is not true of your position. Your position is not testable or potentially falsifiable. That is why it can be used to explain anything and everything without any fear of being proved wrong. That is why your argument explains nothing and is not a scientific position.

          2] claim that I am arguing that everything that is unknown is within the domain of science or “my God”

          No. That’s not my claim at all. What I said is that your argue for a mindless mechanism to explain any and all phenomena even though you don’t currently have such a mechanism in hand. You propose that some future discovery will supply this missing information. This argument of yours is equivalent to a non-testable non-falsifiable GoG argument. It is just that the “god” part of the equation that you’re appealing to here is some kind of mindless natural mechanism – i.e., Nature Herself.

          This requires you to attribute to me philosophical naturalism, which you have ,dishonestly I believe, done. Completely ignoring that I have repeatedly and consistently said that natural mechanism is concerned with process in the natural world and nothing more.

          What you’ve said is that there is no empirical evidence or rational argument to support the existence of a God or God-like being… that everything within the empirical world, everything, can be explained by mindless naturalistic mechanisms. That notion rationally leads most who take on this position toward philosophical naturalism. Many people simply do not consider fideism as a viable option (but perhaps these are simply too “right brained” to understand).

          You have redefined the accepted definition of science to claim I am using it as a universal explanation and redefined science as all possible knowledge and now suggest to George that Intelligent design is right by default unless someone else can prove it wrong.

          I never said that ID was “right by default”. The opposite is true. I would assume a mindless mechanism by default when approaching a new phenomenon. However, I would not assume this position once I discovered that the phenomenon in question clear goes well beyond what any known mindless mechanism can explain. If a phenomenon is clearly beyond any known mindless natural mechanism and is within the realm of what known intelligent agents can produce, then the most rational scientific conclusion is that the phenomenon in question is a true artefact of intelligent design.

          This is exactly the same argument used by forensic scientists, anthropologists, and even SETI scientists. It would also be your argument if our highly symmetrical granite cube happened to be discovered on an alien planet like Mars.

          In comparison, you’re the one claiming that mindless mechanisms of nature are “right be default” – even though you wouldn’t make this claim for a highly symmetrical polished granite cube. You’re simply being inconsistent. And, your position is not testable or potentially falsifiable (i.e., a GoG argument).

          Sean Pitman
          http://www.DetectingDesign.com




          0
          View Comment
  16. Pingback: LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department, by Sean Pitman | adventlife

  17. The OP has been successful at confusing the Adventist message by making a dualist argument out of this. Dualism is an eastern philosophy that has no business in the SDA belief system. It is obvious the views on this site have been perverted by the fundamentalist baptist view, which is based on historical adventism. Since when did adventists get involved with the Right agenda, apologetics and intelligent design? What are you attempting here, to make more atheists?




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.