Strumming the Attached Strings
@Phillip Brantley:

The major basis for opposition to what LSU has been doing is that LSU has been actively undermining the Adventist position on origins for a very long time – telling students that the Adventist position is rationally and scientifically untenable; that the neo-Darwinian position is actually true, and the Adventist position false, based on “overwhelming” empirical evidence. That’s the problem.

You have no problem with this because, as you’ve made very clear, you believe the creationist position to be based on nothing but “pseudoscience” and empirically-blind faith. You actually declare that the Adventist position on origins is no more than a faith-based doctrine which does not belong in any real university science curriculum, much less the primary basis of the curriculum.

That’s where we have a problem… and that is why you do not address such questions when I pose them to you.

You know that the Court’s decision would not allow the Adventist position to be presented, in any bonded building, as any kind of valid scientific counter to the neo-Darwinian position on origins. As David Read said over on the Spectrum blog:

We want creation science to be taught as science, in a scientifically rigorous manner, not merely as faith. (Link)

Of course, such a “fundamentalist” effort would be in clear violation of the language of the bond agreement – as you well know. The language in this regard is quite clear. It is not at all clouded in mystery so that us non-lawyer types can’t understand it – contrary to your rather condescending suggestion that us simpletons best not even try to read the document for ourselves… that we’d better just trust you lawyers to explain it to us. Please…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Strumming the Attached Strings
@Phillip Brantley:

So, the language of the Court’s decision is so mysterious that one has to be a lawyer to understand it? and even then, as in the case of David Read, the language may still be too mysterious? For example, what did the Court mean when it made the following statement?

“The program’s validity turns on two questions: 1) Does each of the recipient schools offer a broad curriculum and secular subjects? 2) Do the school’s secular classes consist of information and coursework that is neutral with respect to religion?

This test insures that the state’s interest in promoting the intellectual improvement of its residents is advanced through the teaching of secular information and coursework, and that the expression of a religious viewpoint in otherwise secular classes will provide a benefit to religion that is merely incidental to the bond programs primary purpose of promoting secular education.”

Are you saying that the Court didn’t mean what it seemed to say here? I mean, I think I’ve read the majority of your comments on various websites regarding this matter, to include your comments regarding the response of LSU, and all I’ve found is your basic argument that there’s no problem because (and I paraphrase):

“There’s no such thing as ‘creation science’. All attempts to argue along these lines amount to nothing more than ‘pseudoscience’. The SDA position on origins is a faith-based religious position that is supported only by the documentary method of biblical interpretation – not any form of significant empirical evidence or true ‘science’. This conclusion has been affirmed by the vast majority of theologians and scientists and even in a court of law [as in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case that you often cite as evidence to support your position]. Therefore, if the SDA position is presented as the faith-based religious perspective that it really is, there is no conflict with the language of the bond agreement.”

Doesn’t that about sum up your position Phil? In other words, if LSU were to attempt to present the SDA perspective on origins as, not just a faith-based position, but as something scientifically superior to the neo-Darwinian position, having the greater support of empirical evidence, that effort would indeed violate what seems to me to be very clear language within the bond agreement… or am I still too simplistic in my understanding of the language in the Court’s decision to really appreciate this distinction and/or the arguments you’ve been making along these lines?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!

The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…

The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…

Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?

Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.