Comment on Ricardo Graham clarifies LSU Board releases by BobRyan.
Ricardo Graham said –
The Board passed two resolutions. The first one was a â€œStatement of Support for the Adventist View of Creationâ€ specifically fundamental belief # 6. This is the resolution that is intended to speak to the context and commitment to teaching of the Adventist belief in creation on campus. This resolution is being implemented.
I see tiny glimmer of “hope” in the “This resolution is BEING implemented” comment – as perhaps being a “subtle hint” that maybe the board might actually be considering a “change” at LSU to bring it in line with belief #6.
That would be wonderful! However the severity of the problem would require at some point – having the LSU board or LSU administrators “admit that the problem exists” in a way substantially beyond talking about “the problem of people complaining about the problem“.
Were they to actually state the problem of the incursion of the origins doctrines central to evolutionism so far as they have taken over the LSU science (and yes even theology) facutly – fully admitting to seeing the problem – and then either print the solution or print their firm commitment to implementing some unstated solution it would have been more
reason for “hope”.
To solve a massive problem as serious as this one – you have to meet it head on — a glancing blow comprised of “solution by implication, nod, and a wink” will not suffice.
How about the request of the General Conference that all teachers and educators teach and support the stated SDA position on origins in all SDA schools? It is this particular request that was in question from the beginning of this issue with LSU. It is quite clear that many if not all of the science professors at LSU support and promote the modern synthesis view of evolution as the most likely account of origins in their classrooms.
It is that kind of direct response to direct question that the “nod and a wink” hint does not address. And it leaves the fate of the university itself on perilous grounds — some brave sole in LSU leadership must answer the call to stand up and be counted – demonstrating a firm all-or-nothing commitment to solving the problem.
BobRyan Also Commented
Darwinism is inconsistent with Adventism. As I dialog with liberals on websites like Atoday and Spectrum, I find many people who, when I challenge them that their beliefs are contrary to long-established and accepted Adventist positions, say something like, â€œ(1) This is a perfectly acceptable position, Iâ€™m an Adventist and I hold it, (2) we will always have a great deal of diversity of opinion within the church, and (3) we are an anti-credal church.â€
Honestly, I think the whole educate-truth effort may be too little, too late. There is the distinct possibility that LaSierra is the way it is because it accurately reflects its lukewarm, increasingly corrupt constituency.
The question at this point is — are you simply hearing from a highly outspoken fringe or possibly a small Biblically-apathetic section of the denomination or do they really represent main stream SDA thinking that is of the form “why sure our doctrines and the Bible are all wrong”?
I know that the door that says “ENTER” is typically our revelation seminar style door – and those materials are all endorsing a literal 7 day creation week.
And as we saw here – even extreme left groups like Steve Daily’s “Celebration Center” have the presence of mind to see that evolutionism is nothing less than the primary foundation for atheism.
So as much as I dissagree with almost everything Daily believes – the fact that even he can still see this false religion of evolutionism as “a bad thing” – gives me hope that the LSU administration does not in fact represent the church in general.
I pray that this means that – their numbers are not yet what they seem to imagine them to be.
Ricardo Graham clarifies LSU Board releases
David – you bring up good points that show a deep rooted systemic problem.
Which is why I would be surprised if Graham’s board is really opposed to evolutionism being taught as “the best answer for the diversity of life we see around us today”. Given your findings above – The ones that actually do believe in creationism would not know enough about their own faith to challenge the doctrines of evolutionism being promoted at LSU and many others would actually favor it.
Richard Myers says:
December 8, 2009 Some may not understand the authority involved at this school. Elder Graham as the president of the Pacific Union Conference chairs the board of trustees at La Sierra. As the chair, here are his stated duties as specified in the schoolâ€™s by-laws:
â€œThe president of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists shall serve as chair of the Board of Trustees. It shall be the function of the chair:
a. To preside at meetings of the Constituent Membership of the University and of the Board of Trustees.
b. To ensure that all actions of the Constituent Membership and all actions of the Board of Trustees are carried into effect through the University president.â€
Therefore, Elder Graham is the man to â€œensureâ€ that the lie is not taught at La Sierra.
There is another way to read that job description.
1. Graham’s job is to follow whatever direction the board members vote – even if it is evolution friendly — even if many board members are open to evolutionism. He must make sure the LSU president follows the directives of that board — no matter which direction the board takes.
2. Graham is also the marketing “face” for the board. He needs to put a good spin on whatever they decide so that the most number of customers will show up at the school.
So to really know Graham directive you have to know whether the majority of board members are in Group-I or Group-II below.
Those truly opposed to support for evolutionism, those that know that evolutionism is “pure poison to SDA key doctrines”, to the Bible and poison even to Christianity itself.
How likely is it that a clear majority of the board either support evolutionism as the “best science on origins” or at least they view it as “a valid option within a pluralistic church and academic environment” such that allowing evolutionists to pedal their doctrines at LSU is simply a statement in support of “academic freedom”.
My guess is that a large number of LSU board members fall into that second group. But are they in the majority or are they likely to become the majority based on expected changes in board membership in the near future.
Knowing this – would tell you much more about Graham’s true objectives and mission (even if he himself is in Group-I as a best case scenario).
Recent Comments by BobRyan
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind