Former LSU student letter reveals professor’s agenda

By Educate Truth Staff

Below is the letter former LSU students Janelle and Jason wrote to the GC and Pacific Union in 2004. It was passed on to the GC Secretariat Matthew Bediako and Pacific Union President Tom Mostert, both of whom are currently retired. The letter reveals the one sided presentation of evolution and the obvious agenda of some of the biology professors to instill what they consider to be the truth regarding origins and the historicity of the Bible.

Lee Grismer is described as enjoying “making students and visiting professors look like fools, if they question the validity of Darwin’s theory of evolution.”

The biology capstone class, team taught at that time by Gary Bradley and Larry McCloskey, spent the first seven weeks of the course indoctrinating evolution as the best explanation*, according to Janelle. She said the other side of the argument “received no attention,” and that the “biology classes at La Sierra University teach evolution to the EXCLUSION of the Adventist (biblical) view of creation.”

When Janelle voiced her concern over the one sided presentation of origins McCloskey said there would not be any mention of creation science in the capstone class because in his opinion it was not real science. Later in a meeting with McCloskey, Janelle said he told her that he felt God had placed him at La Sierra University to enlighten the students to his beliefs.

The religion department wasn’t much help either in the capstone class in bolstering students’ faith in the biblical creation. The general message was that the Genesis account of creation was not to be taken literally.

This letter underscores the blatant undermining of the Bible and Seventh-day Adventist beliefs occurring at LSU.

Janelle Letter

*7/21/11 Originally worded “evolution as fact.” According to one of the LSU biology professors, no one in the department teaches evolution as fact.

Share on Facebook0Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

85 thoughts on “Former LSU student letter reveals professor’s agenda

  1. This is heartbreaking.

    McCloskey was the professor who “enlightened” me almost 25 years ago in a biology class at another Adventist institution. I left the church for several years as a result.

    The worst part is that church leaders and officials have swept these issues under the rug for all these years while still hoping enough people will remain in the church, despite their doubts, to continue paying enough tithe and offerings to cover their salaries. It is mortifying! Several generations of young people have gone in and out of our schools without ever having the opportunity to consider all aspects of the creation/evolution debate and make informed decisions of their own. If professors like McCloskey really believe they hold the truth, then they shouldn’t be afraid to have their “science” scrutinized a little. Isn’t peer review what keeps scientists honest? (And they don’t get to hand-pick their peers.)

    Anyone who declares, “I’m here only to teach and not to learn,” beware!




    0
    View Comment
  2. Wow. Some leaders have fallen asleep at their posts. And here again we see professors and administrators crying foul that their methods are being brought into question. If what they’re teaching is truth and they know that what they’re doing is ethical, then there should be absolutely no complaint if their teachings are made known. Transparency and clarity is a natural result of innocence and truth. I’m sick of hearing people trying to twist Matthew 18 argument to justify their public ravaging of young minds. What a shame. Leaders, stand up and defend your young people.




    0
    View Comment
  3. This letter from 2004 and then the petition from 2004 – describe a picture at LSU that goes far beyond neglect and mismanagement. It was an outright agenda to undermine the truth that SDAs are committed to promote before the World.

    In this letter we see Fritz Guy, McCloskey and Geraty actually working in tandem. A coordinated team effort with each person acting their part to circle the wagons in defense of their common objective. Whether they did this as a result of backroom closed-door planning sessions or they “just so happened” to do it — either way the students did not stand a chance.

    But eventually the truth would come to light.

    in Christ,

    Bob
    =============================================================

    To stand in defense of truth and righteousness when the majority forsake us, to fight the battles of the Lord when champions are few–this will be our test. At this time we must gather warmth from the coldness of others, courage from their cowardice, and loyalty from their treason.–5T 136 (1882). {LDE 180.4}




    0
    View Comment
  4. @Johnny Vance:

    Johnny, if only the leaders were asleep. I don’t believe that for a moment. We have cowardly leaders who are unwilling to stand up against error because it might harm them or their reputation. I fear for them in the judgement! These people have bowed to the god of political correctness and the rocks of the earth rather than the God of creation who made the rocks. Those leaders will call for those same rocks to fall on them because of the people they have harmed and their lack of backbone.




    0
    View Comment
  5. Where men refused to deal with the apostates, those in charge will be accounted as guilty.

    In the great reckoning to come they will pay.

    I am glad this lady had the courage to speak and write. The evidence is plain for all to see.




    0
    View Comment
  6. I’m aware that Ellen G. White did not receive instructions from the Lord to meet the pantheistic heresy until years passed and she received the vision to “meet it”. This is in reference to a vision in 1906(?)in which she found herself on a ship about to clip an iceberg. I wonder…really wonder, if for some reason unbeknownst to us, our church leaders are “allowing” the apostasy to fully develop, waiting for some similar instruction to meet the apostasy head-on. I admit to my human failings and confess that I’m getting impatient of the waiting, wondering if the leadership is waiting out of faith, or waiting out of cowardice and negligence. The laity must nonetheless stand for truth with love towards those who are erring. But stand on the walls it must.




    0
    View Comment
  7. The basic issue at hand here is sad and maddeningly mystifying enough. But what is really puzzling is that church leadership is so slothful! This was written in 2004!? Leadership means that you see very clearly and act decisively. Four years to come to the defense of the foundational principles of Christianity being dismantled in the very incubator of Adventist leadership of the future is unacceptable! Letting it ‘work itself out’, is not leadership! Six years since this heart-breaking plea from the heart of a young person, with no clear, decisive action? This is shameful. What happens in the world seems to come to the church in some form sooner or later. What’s needed here is an SDA TEA party! (De-caffeinated, of course!)




    0
    View Comment
  8. I have been saying for a long time that the teaching of evolution at La Sierra is only the tip of a much larger problem. Here we have evidence that this problem has been brought to the attention of the GC and the Pacific Union Conferences in the past and nothing has been done at La Sierra.

    We do not have a Roman Catholic hierarchy. The responsibility for action begins with the Pacific Union board and the La Sierra Board. Both have not put a stop to the abomination. The GC in session has addressed the issue. The GC addressed the issue in the 1990s, but the new GC administration did not follow through. Now, with the call for revival and reformation coming from the GC, we see a divide in the church. There are three divisions in the church that are “wiser” than the world church. The are the elite and they know better. I am part of the North American Division and we need to see a great deal of reformation before Jesus can come. May that reformation begin at La Sierra and the Pacific Union Conference.




    0
    View Comment
  9. The students MUST stand up to what is right. It is about Jesus, He would not stand up for such things. We must put ourselves aside and do what is right!! Stand up students! That goes for all around our universities. We cannot sit idly by and ‘hope’ something will be done, you have to make a stand also, don’t be afraid, only Satan gives the spirit of fear.




    0
    View Comment
  10. Dr. Larry McCloskey taught at Walla Walla University for many years in the Biology Department. How many young people were affected at that time?

    Ask this question: what is the value of one soul?




    0
    View Comment
  11. I happen to know that the leaders of the local Church, the local Conferences, the Division, and the General Conference were well aware of this problem. I personally wrote letters to them all back in 2004 (and again in 2009) and received letters in return assuring me that all was well and that Mrs. White had told us that the Church would go through to the end of time. A couple of these leaders even called me on the phone and promised me that they would look into this problem. Of course, as we all know, nothing of any substance was done.

    At least part of the problem, of course, was the very deliberately deceptive language that was used by the LSU administration – especially Dr. Lawrence Geraty. While president of LSU he would tell people that all the professors at LSU believed in creation and actively supported and promoted the SDA fundamental belief #6 on creation. How could he possibly say this? with a straight face? Well, you see, Dr. Geraty, together with Fritz Guy, had been largely responsible for the current wording of SDA FB#6. In their minds, the wording of FB#6 allows for the interpretation that the “days” of creation represent vast periods of time – not necessarily “literal” days as is the historical view of the SDA Church regarding the Genesis narrative – and as is clearly stated in the writing of Mrs. White and the Bible as well. This is why Geraty and Guy worked so hard to block the inclusion of the word “literal” from SDA FB#6. Because, without the phrase “six literal days”, Geraty and Guy felt that they could then hire professors who could honestly teach their students about the reality of Darwinian style evolution taking place on this planet over the course of hundreds of millions of years while still pretending to support the fundamental doctrinal beliefs of the SDA Church.

    So, there you have it. Dr. Geraty would tell people that the professors of LSU were in full support of the Church’s official position on origins while not explaining what that really meant: that the professors were not in fact young-life creationists in the remotest sense of the word and that they did in fact believe and teach mainstream evolutionary theories as the “true” story of origins to their students…

    I’m not sure how deliberately deceptive one can get, but in my opinion, Dr. Geraty and Fritz Guy should have been fired and disfellowshiped from the SDA Church over such deliberately deceptive words and actions. The current administration of LSU is really no better than when Drs. Geraty and Guy were president. Dr. Randal Wisbey, the current LSU president, has publicly expressed his own sympathy with long-ages of life evolving on this planet and is in full support of the positions and methods of his current teaching staff. He and the LSU board have actively opposed any effort to substantively address this issue at LSU as well. Instead, they have been producing deceptive advertisements and misdirection regarding what is really being taught at LSU against the doctrinal positions of the SDA Church in an effort to sweep this issue under the rug yet again.

    At this point, I think that the Church should put out an official reprimand against what LSU did in the past and is currently doing and offer an official apology to parents, students, and the Church membership at large for not dealing with this issue decades ago…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  12. I am amazed that anyone would think that this is something that is recent, and just a witch hunt to harm innocent individuals by taking away their academic freedom, and their freedom of speech.
    I also am struck by the lack of the usual negative contributors to this blog that have trashed this blog and historical Adventism. It would seem that even they have been silenced by this documented betrayal. This is not recent. This has been going on for a long time. If it has been going on for so long, then how many of our other doctrines have been tweaked to correspond with other more evangelical views? Have we been compromised in more than the creation/evolution debate? Are there other areas of our twenty eight fundamental beliefs that have been arranged to say what the reader wants to believe it says?
    It is time that we studied to show ourselves approved unto God, workmen that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. You might be surprised at how many theological issues have been swept under the carpet in the interest of unity, and pressing together. There are too many of our people who are very willing to take the word of scholars, the BRI, Doug Bachelor, Dwight Nelson, and others. This is not to imply that they teach error, but how do we know? Have we been like the Bereans who didn’t even give unlimited trust to Paul? We are under studied, and therefore ignorant of many of the current issues facing the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
    Just because an individual has an earned PhD in a given discipline or multiple disciplinary areas of either the bible or science means that they are to be taken as the final word on truth. You, your bible, the Spirit of Prophecy, a good concordance under the guidance of the Holy Spirit are the equal of any scholar. They have just done it longer and in perhaps a more focused way. Many academics are also more acquainted with what other academics have taught about the bible, than the scriptures themselves. They have sat at the feet of others who may or may not believe, which poses a whole other problem. Is it possible that the great shaking that is directly ahead will turn church upside down. Anything that can be shaken loose will be shaken loose. I would suggest that we get ready, because it is directly ahead.
    I firmly believe in some ways not only will we have to have faith in the face of limited, or no evidence, but at the very end, we will be required to have faith in the face of contrary evidence. The final deception will be so powerful that it could deceive the very elect. We take that warning lightly at our own spiritual risk. I only pray I will not be one of those shaken out.




    0
    View Comment
  13. At this time……….I have disappointment in the fact of the “public discussion.”

    Who? Who……is going to take responsibility for this mess….we can talk about it until the Second Coming.

    The buck has to stop at someone’s feet…..where is the leadership from the GC?

    This has become a “open court”…..WHO is this glorifing???? It is not Christ…..when do those, who have the power to intervene….intervene?

    If they are….the “public” that has been drawn into this dispute, needs to know…

    May God help us not hurt His reputation while this mess continues…
    Deborah




    0
    View Comment
  14. In the vernacular of WWII I am just a PFC (poor fool civilian). But I have been reading of this debacle at LSU and am more than concerned.

    Recently I have been purposely spending an hour each day in Prayer and Bible study, with no agenda except to hear what God has to say to me. It has been a revelation. In a number of areas new ideas and new applications have been impressed on me.

    Specifically to this issue, in Jeremiah and Ezekiel there are extensive denunciations of Israel and Judah because of their idolatry, oppression of the poor, Sabbath desecration, love of gain, and violence. From where we sit today, we look down on Israel and Judah. But are we any better? Is God pleased with the present day church? Don’t we have “other gods” but just with different names?

    I can’t help but think that we as a church are just as deserving of judgment as were they. Yet even in the wickedness of Israel and Judah, there was always a righteous remnant to whom God had special regard, and to whom He gave special blessings. The warnings and the promises are still for us today.

    Hubert F. Sturges




    0
    View Comment
  15. This morning in my reading of the SOP I found the following quotation: “In the work of educating the youth in our schools, it will be a difficult matter to retain the influence of God’s Holy Spirit, and at the same time hold fast to erroneous principles. The light shining upon those who have eyes to see, cannot be mingled with the darkness of heresy and error found in many of the text-books recommended to the students in our colleges. Both teachers and pupils have thought that in order to obtain an education, it was necessary to study the productions of writers who teach infidelity, because their works contain some bright gems of thought. But who was the originator of these gems of thought?–It was God and God alone; for he is the source of all light. Are not all things essential for the health and growth of the spiritual and moral nature found in the pages of Holy Writ? Is not Christ our living head? And are not we to grow up in him to the full stature of men and women? Can an impure fountain send forth sweet waters? Why should we wade through the mass of error contained in the works of pagans and infidels, for the sake of obtaining the benefit of a few intellectual truths, when all truth is at our command? {CE 98.2} {CT 378.1}” [edit] Certainly the people who teach that which is contrary to our biblical understanding as a denomination would qualify as unbelievers.




    0
    View Comment
  16. Isn’t peer review what keeps scientists honest?

    @CBOND
    Yes peer review is what keeps science honest. I think the trouble with our biology classes is that there is no peer reviewed liturature to support a literal recent creation. The teachers can’t teach what isn’t there.

    One of the questions I would like a theologian to address is, If God did in fact create the world about 10,000 years ago, why did he create it to look like it is millions of years old? Is that not dishonest of God? What possible motivation could he have for lying to us?




    0
    View Comment
  17. @Ron: Keep in mind your presuppositions are what is creating the dichotomy you present. You’re assuming the mainstream interpretation of the data to be true. You’re accepting mainstream interpretation over divine revelation, which maybe fine for you, but it is not the Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutic. God’s word is our ultimate standard of truth in all that it touches upon.




    0
    View Comment
  18. Yep! That was us. Good to read that letter again. We never knew if anyone received it because we never received an official/unofficial reply from anyone at the administrative level. At the time, we just felt that administration thought of us as some punk kids trying to start controversy, rocking the boat when things were going just fine. How funny! Just like King Ahab telling Elijah that he was the troubler of Israel for calling out the sins of the country when all along the problem was Ahab’s own sins.

    Well, Janelle and I thank “Educate Truth” for all they are doing in leading this effort to shine light in a dark place. We pray for revival and reformation in the hearts of the young people on that campus that they would awake to the reality of what is happening and start speaking up, not one by one, but in mass against this sin against God and His church.

    God Bless Educate Truth!

    Jason & Janelle Shives




    0
    View Comment
  19. I have been following this for some time off & on. The reason I am interested is that Walla Walla College has a Professor that is in charge of the engineering deptartment that has caused a family member to loose faith in the church for the same reason(evolution).To undermine our foundations in young minds is criminal.If these individuals were involved in child molesting they would be prosecuted & delt with imediatley.Because this is a higher education sacred cow our local leadership has turned their heads!This is criminal!To think we pay for our kids to go to these institutions & be spiritually destroyed how terribly wrong !
    As I read about the Jesuit order some of these leaders certainly qualify
    for the job.
    Our new leadership is doing a better job,but I have a great concern when I see the pattern repeated all through out our conferances.This reminds me a of a parent with a spoiled child that won’t lift a finger to disciplne.Has our learship become so concerned about their retirements that they hold back any form of church discipline!
    Is popularity become the Idol of our current state of mind that our leaders will put the favor of man over the Favor OF God? These kids blood will be upon these leaders who allow this on their watch! We are becomming vegaburger Christians….lets see how much we can please the world & not be the real thing! I hope the Lord will open eyes before it’s too late !




    0
    View Comment
  20. I attended LSU back in the early 1970’s I remember the same professors (Guy especially) expressing doubts about the creation account and using extra reading books which claimed that the Genesis account was myth based on ancient Middle East pagan myths. This was presented in a way that it was enlightening, a better understanding than the traditional, backward views of the old SDAs. At the time, I was puzzled why this would be taught, but didn’t say anything. Now I can see where all that was leading. Happily, I wasn’t taken in [edit].




    0
    View Comment
  21. @Ron: If God did in fact create the world about 10,000 years ago, why did he create it to look like it is millions of years old? Is that not dishonest of God?

    1. Of course, it is not dishonest of God. He tells us in His word its approximate age, so how could ANYONE charge Him with deception.

    2. Furthermore, He did not create it to look like it is millions of years old. He made it to look like what He created it to look like. If He created it to look like it was millions of years old, believe me, it would in fact look like it was millions of years old. Just because some people confidently declare it “looks” like it is millions of years old doesn’t mean that is what it actually looks like. It actually looks like it is 6,000 years old with catastrophic changes from sin. What it will look like on its 1 millionth birthday will be profoundly different than what you might think.

    3. Why did Jesus come as a baby and look one day old on His first day after birth when, in fact, He had lived “billions of years” having existed from all eternity. Was He being dishonest. No. Lest anyone be confused, He gives His age as the eternal God. If I look young, but state my age, am I being dishonest?

    By the way, this letter from the Shives struck me with far more force than anything else that has been published on Educate Truth. I could only say after reading it, “Be not deceived. God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”




    0
    View Comment
  22. Re Phil Quote

    “2. Furthermore, He did not create it to look like it is millions of years old. He made it to look like what He created it to look like. If He created it to look like it was millions of years old, believe me, it would in fact look like it was millions of years old. Just because some people confidently declare it “looks” like it is millions of years old doesn’t mean that is what it actually looks like. It actually looks like it is 6,000 years old with catastrophic changes from sin. What it will look like on its 1 millionth birthday will be profoundly different than what you might think.”

    Dear Phil and Ron

    Gentleman,excuse me for being pedantic. How do you know the world ‘looks’ like it is 6000 years, or millions, or billions years old, if you are younger than that?

    Ron, what exactly will the earth look like on its millionth birthday?

    Isn’t the age of the earth relative to what we know from science, or conversely faith?

    Cheers
    Benjamin Button




    0
    View Comment
  23. I have been following this for some time off & on. The reason I am interested is that Walla Walla College has a Professor that is in charge of the engineering deptartment that has caused a family member to loose faith in the church for the same reason(evolution).

    The NPUC president ordered a “house cleaning” of Walla Wall a number of years ago in the religion and sciences departments to deal with the problem of evolutionism – and so about that time some of the Walla Walla problems transfered to LSU where they apparently found a sacrifice-all-for-evolutionism agenda welcomed.

    It is news to me that Walla Walla is now considering a turn back to that old failed model. (Though they have been deathly silent on this subject, on this board so far – I have still been hoping the best for them.). I know some of the people there today and am certain that the ones I know believe in a literal 7 day creation week less than 10,000 years ago.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  24. One of the questions I would like a theologian to address is, If God did in fact create the world about 10,000 years ago, why did he create it to look like it is millions of years old? Is that not dishonest of God? What possible motivation could he have for lying to us?

    Was it “dishonest of God” not to create Adam “as a zygote” slippy sliding around Eden so that he would “look 1 day old”??

    Was it “dishonest of God” not to make all plants on the earth “appear” as seeds in the ground on day 4 (meaning all animals starve on days 5 and 6).

    Or might a mature “functioning planet” have had more “value to God” than “what would an evolutionist say about this?”.

    Which gets us to the REASON that we even have radioactive elements in the earth’s crust (provides the reduced friction to enable tectonic plate movement which allows for the green house gases that keeps our planet from being a frozen orb at the surface). And speaking of “green house gases” – God also needed a “starting amount” to be sure that things were not frozen solid on the ground.

    And yet we are told by evolutionists that these features of planet earth only exist to lie to evolutionists about how old the earth is today.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  25. What to do? Try this. Educate the youth at home or at church to trust the Bible by showing that true science either supports or is ambiguous concerning what Scripture teaches. Since the evolutionist always lets “science” trump Scripture (religion), one must show that evolutionary “science’ is in fact religion. Here’s one (of many) examples. DNA contains coded information. But there no known naturalistic process for generating (or originating) information. (There are naturalistic processes for copying, rearranging, splicing, etc. existing information.) Therefore, the evolutionist must believe, by faith, that such a mechanism or process exists. Now we all know that faith is a religious concept. The controversy is religion vs. religion, not “science” vs. religion. The only known method of generating information is by an intelligent being.

    For those “creationists” who believe God “created” living things through evolutionary processes over vast ages of time, other facts are needed to refute or at least question the vast ages and there are plenty of facts for that job. For example: When one uranium atom decays to one lead atom 8 atoms of helium (actually alpha particles that capture electrons) are generated. Where is all the helium? There should be 2,000+ times more than we observe. Actually some is still trapped in rock crystals, but almost all of that helium should have leaked out of the crystals if the earth is billions of years old. Another impossible problem for the “old earthers” is found in the Grand Canyon. There are some contiguous layers that are supposed to be separated in their time of deposition by millions or even tens of millions of years. Yet there there is almost no surface erosion on the lower layer. The only reasonable explanation is that the upper layer was deposited immediately after the lower and no millions of years ever existed. It looks like evidence for Noah’s flood.

    The “old earthers” try to suppress discussion of such topics because the audience tends to become confused concerning the “fact” of evolution. I wonder why?

    Excellent on line, printed, and DVD resources are found at creation.com, ICR.org, and answersingenesis.com.

    Marching to Zion.
    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  26. I also hope the new General Conference President will have the courage to meet this crisis head-on and allow God to use him as a true reformer and not just one who talks about reformation and revival.

    It is only men of action who will meet God’s approval in this decisive hour of earth’s history. If cancer is not dealt with early in it’s course, it spreads like wildfire until it is too late for a cure. Only God knows how far the cancer of evolution has spread in our colleges, and how many young people have been influenced to a point where the reality of truth can no longer have a solid impact on their lives.

    Praying for our leaders who have the invested authority to do something at this time and show our church at large that they are indeed called of God for a time such as this.

    In Christ,
    Marc




    0
    View Comment
  27. This has been going on for a long time.If it has been going on for so long, then how many of our other doctrines have been tweaked to correspond with other more evangelical views?Have we been compromised in more than the creation/evolution debate?Are there other areas of our twenty eight fundamental beliefs that have been arranged to say what the reader wants to believe it says? It is time that we studied to show ourselves approved unto God, workmen that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.You might be surprised at how many theological issues have been swept under the carpet…..

    The teaching of evolution is not the important issue. I am glad that some are beginning to see the problem. Since some so far removed from the truth are in fact responsible for writing FB #6, then tell me that they and others like them are not responsible for other heresies being established at such a fundamental level in our church. I can tell you that they are. C. Mervyn Maxwell expressed it very clearly some years ago when he said that they had taken over the schools and our publishing houses. This is not something new nor is it something that has been done in the dark.

    Pastor Brehms is just to the point when he says that the fault lies with us. Why have we allowed this? Because we buy the books filled with human wisdom at the neglect of studying that which is inspired. We have been given a pure fountain to drink from, but we have not done so. We have been drinking from broken cisterns. And the teaching of evolution is only a very small tip of a much larger problem. That it continues is proof that the problem does not end with the school.

    The call for reform has gone out from the highest level in the church. Now, what shall I do? And watch what happens with conference leadership in Western Europe, Australia, and the NAD. There will be a rising up against the call for revival and reformation. It will fail because the church will see revival. But, many will be shaken out. Many are in the valley of decision and some will not choose God. Let us pray for ourselves and the leadership of our conferences.




    0
    View Comment
  28. Re Mark’s Quote

    “I also hope the new General Conference President will have the courage to meet this crisis head-on and allow God to use him as a true reformer and not just one who talks about reformation and revival.

    It is only men of action who will meet God’s approval in this decisive hour of earth’s history.”

    Dear Mark

    I agree with your comment that action is needed, not just debate. Here is my suggestion. The folks that support Sean should move to create a chair in creation science at all the Adventists universities to counter the teaching of evolution. Appoint Sean as a visiting professor to set up curriculum. Get the support of Ted Wilson and the GC to do so.

    Sean, Shane, Bob, Wes, etc. What do you thinks of this as a course of action?

    By the way I will agree to serve as an outside director and trustee on any of the institutions in this regard.

    Comments everyone?

    Regards
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
  29. @Ken: How do you know the world ‘looks’ like it is 6000 years, or millions, or billions years old, if you are younger than that?

    How can we know anything about history that happened either before we were born or occurred where we could not observe it? We can’t, unless there was a reliable observer who than informs us what happened. In the case of creation, that is God. He was there. He is a reliable observer. Furthermore, even if I was over 6,000 years old and was present during the creation, my observations would be of less value and reliability than His.

    The mere speculations of evolutionists as to the apparent age of the earth may be convincing to the simple, the gullible, the naive but an evolutionist saying it is so doesn’t make it so. No evolutionist was there. God was.

    Who is the liar? God, who was there? Or some fool who wasn’t there, isn’t very old, and doesn’t know much of anything but believes that his (or her) research shows the earth must be very old? I wish all my questions in life were this easy.




    0
    View Comment
  30. Why are there few true Bible believing Adventists in leadership? Because most have either never believed in the first place or sold out.

    “The greatest want of the world IS the want of MEN-men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name, men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will STAND for the RIGHT though the heavens fall.” (Education, p. 57)

    “God never asks us to believe without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. His existence, His character, the truthfulness of His Word, are all established by testimony that appeals to our reason; and this testimony is abundant. Yet God has never removed the possibility of doubt. Our faith must rest upon evidence, not demonstration. Those who wish to doubt will have opportunity; while those who really desire to know the truth, will find plenty of evidence on which to rest their faith.” (Steps to Christ, p. 105)

    “Bible believing” Adventists believe without a shadow of doubt in the 7 ‘literal’ day creation process, for there IS plenty of evidence to support it. While the those who do not, are allowed that choice by God Himself. Now, those who believe that evolution is the only ‘truth’ or ‘real science’ should not be allowed to teach this corrupt worldly view in our Adventist institutions-ever!

    One thing still remains, “God has not removed the possibility of doubt.”

    Remove doubt, remove the freedom of choice.




    0
    View Comment
  31. If this is true about Walla Walla, then we have problems at La Sierra, Loma Linda, Walla Walla, and Southern. This is not just about evolution, but all of our beliefs. I believe this problem is much larger than we think right now. Pastor Wilson please do something!!




    0
    View Comment
  32. Ken said –

    here is my suggestion. The folks that support Sean should move to create a chair in creation science at all the Adventists universities to counter the teaching of evolution. Appoint Sean as a visiting professor to set up curriculum. Get the support of Ted Wilson and the GC to do so.

    Sean, Shane, Bob, Wes, etc. What do you thinks of this as a course of action?

    As SAU’s professor Spencer, and Southwestern’s Chadwick and others at LLU and AU etc – illustrate, we have good science going forward and doing research to demonstrate the evidence in favor of creation science.

    However what we seem to lack (as you point out) is the coordinated deliberate pro-creation-science promotion/debate/evangelism intentionally institutionalized as a key componant of all of our universities.

    As per my favorate annecdotal illustration recently – let us take a page from evolution evangelists over there at “Pandas Thumb” –

    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/11/seventh-day-adv.html#more

    here they respond to the LSU Board of director “news” that LSU supports YEC –

    Panda’s Thumb article:

    At first glance, it is confusing that this is news. Those of us who are familiar with the history of creationism and have read Ronald Numbers’ classic The Creationists, and learned that the Seventh-Day Adventists were virtually the only fundamentalists who produced major advocates supporting belief in a young earth and global flood in the early 20th century – based on the literalist visions of Adventist founder and prophetess Ellen White. It was only in the 1960s that the young-earth/global view became dominant within American fundamentalism/conservative evangelicalism in general, primarily through the efforts of Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in The Genesis Flood.

    Due to the above, it would be natural to assume that if anyone dependably takes a stauch YEC position, it would be the Seventh Day Adventists. The Adventists and their Geoscience Research Center supplied most of the creationist expert witnesses in the 1981 McLean vs. Arkansas trial, and the official position of the church seems to be unambiguous

    In fact Adventists are known for being the first guys out of the gate on this subject when it comes to evidence for creation as opposed to pabulumist arguments for evolutionism.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  33. Bob Ryan is correct. There are some good science professors at SDA schools, but they are often marginalized and sometimes fearful of of loosing their jobs and therefore loosing what little influence they might have on their students. The administration and governing board must be dealt with first. Even an endowed chair for a literal 6 day creation could, by an antagonistic administration, be assigned NON credit classes. This was done at Stanford University to a professor, a Nobel prize winner, who proclaimed politically incorrect ideas.

    Marching to Zion,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  34. As SAU’s professor Spencer, and Southwestern’s Chadwick and others at LLU and AU etc – illustrate, we have good science going forward and doing research to demonstrate the evidence in favor of creation science.

    As Geanna correctly pointed out, these gentlemen are hobbyists. There are many fossil collectors and there are many who teach about fossils, but doing these things does NOT make one a scientist. If that were the case, my 11-year-old niece would be a scientist.

    [In reference to Panda’s Thumb article] In fact Adventists are known for being the first guys out of the gate on this subject when it comes to evidence for creation as opposed to pabulumist arguments for evolutionism.

    Hoorah for Henry Morris and John Whitcomb for making our Church look good! Um…wait a minute…these guys ARE Adventist, aren’t they?




    0
    View Comment
  35. Re Jon’s Quote

    “Remove doubt, remove the freedom of choice.”

    Dear Jon

    Unfortunately many totalitarian regimes have been built on that premise. Is that what you wish the SDA to teach to its youth?

    Regards
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
  36. @Ken:

    Unfortunately many totalitarian regimes have been built on that premise. Is that what you wish the SDA to teach to its youth?

    You can’t freely leave a totalitarian regime. Anyone can freely join or leave the SDA Church, or a job officially representing the Church, at any time. Just because an organization has enforced rules when it comes to those who wish to be paid representatives does not make it “totalitarian”. Freedom to leave makes all the difference in a free civil society where there is much needed separation between Church and State.

    The Church should never ever think to take on civil powers or the prerogative to enforce its own opinions on those who do not agree or wish to be part of the Church. However, the Church, if it wishes to remain viable, must employ only those individuals who will accurately represent the goals and ideals of the Church…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  37. @Professor Kent:

    As Geanna correctly pointed out, these gentlemen are hobbyists. There are many fossil collectors and there are many who teach about fossils, but doing these things does NOT make one a scientist. If that were the case, my 11-year-old niece would be a scientist.

    Are you seriously trying to compare your 11-year-old niece to the likes of Arthur Chadwick or Leonard Brand? Come on now. You’re just making yourself look silly at this point…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  38. Though I had briefly reviewed the letter from Jason and Janelle Shives some days ago, tonight was the first time I actually sat down to read the entire document. It is a masterful though tragic account of a most disturbing situation.

    I have known Jason Shives for some time, and have admired him for his courage in standing for truth. He and I share a common experience in having both served as president of the Loma Linda University student body.

    What is needed is a grassroots movement of godly students like Jason and Janelle, who will not sit and listen quietly to the perversion of truth in Adventist classrooms. Leaders with the courage to act are needed, most assuredly, but when a groundswell of concern from the young becomes evident, they can act with the awareness that the rising generaiton does not, after all, wish to see the church’s teachings trashed, as the liberals devoutly believe.

    If the Bible means anything at all, revival and reformation involve drastic changes in the faith and practice of a community which for a time has departed from the written counsel of God. In the Bible story, this has generally meant the removal of unfaithful personnel from positions of influence and leadership. Most assuredly this must happen in contemporary Adventism. If it means closing departments or even institutions until we can staff them with faithful teachers, we must be prepared to do this.

    Let us keep in particular our new General Conference President in our prayers, as the task of guiding the denominational ship of state rests to a large degree in his hands.

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson




    0
    View Comment
  39. @ Sean Pitman

    Are you seriously trying to compare your 11-year-old niece to the likes of Arthur Chadwick or Leonard Brand? Come on now. You’re just making yourself look silly at this point…

    Excuse me: I didn’t comment on Leonard Brand. I was responding to the mention of Chadwick and Lee. Let’s ask this: what have they contributed to science that my niece has not? They like to dig fossils; so does my niece. They like to talk about their “research;” so does my niece. They talk to college students; my niece talks to schoolmates and Sabbath Schoolmates. One can easily Google the [lack of] publications by these professors (especially as senior authors); one can do the same for my niece.

    Okay, since you mentioned Dr. Leonard Brand at LLU, he has published solid papers and several good books. He, at least, is producing real science and I totally respect that. David Read, a lawyer lacking a PhD in science, has published a book on origins (that I have not read), but he is not mentioned among the Adventist “scientists” putting forward evidence for creation. So who is and who is not a “scientist” among this group? And you think I’ve embarassed myself?




    0
    View Comment
  40. @Professor Kent:

    Excuse me: I didn’t comment on Leonard Brand. I was responding to the mention of Chadwick and Lee. Let’s ask this: what have they contributed to science that my niece has not? They like to dig fossils; so does my niece. They like to talk about their “research;” so does my niece. They talk to college students; my niece talks to schoolmates and Sabbath Schoolmates. One can easily Google the [lack of] publications by these professors (especially as senior authors); one can do the same for my niece.

    You do realize that Brand and Chadwick have worked together and published papers together? – right? I wonder what Brand would say about your comparison of the knowledge and work of Chadwick to your niece?

    You actually chastise Shane and me for publicly calling out professors who are attacking the Church’s fundamental beliefs in our own classrooms, but feel yourself free to publicly compare the work of someone like Arthur Chadwick to your niece?!

    Methinks you doth protest too much 😉

    http://origins.swau.edu/who/chadwick/cchadwick98.html

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  41. As long as we’re making comparisons, there’s another difference between Dr. Brand and others, like Dr. Chadwick and Dr. Pitman. Apparently, Dr. Brand has no interest in going online to publicly criticize his peers and fellow Christians.

    And neither does my niece.




    0
    View Comment
  42. Some of my comments are obviously tongue-in-cheek. I am certain that Dr. Chadwick and Dr. Spencer are good men, and they are obviously well-trained scientists to attain the positions they hold. My point is simply that, if we are to hold up science and evidence as superior to faith (a position advocated here, and one I never expected to see in the SDA Church), we need to distinguish between science that is rigorously conducted and holds up to scrutiny by qualified peers, versus science that only gets talked about. What we get here is a lot of the latter.

    Obviously, many Church laypersons are willing to grasp at anything from someone they want to be an authority who supports their fragile faith. I say, instead, grab a hold of the One who is knocking continually at your door. To depend on what so-and-so says to form one’s faith is fraught with danger. In contrast, to know Him is to truly believe in Him.




    0
    View Comment
  43. Ahh, Professor Kent and Geanna Dane, as self-anointed authorities, have put on their spy glasses and spotted the hobbyists who are masquerading as SDA professors.

    Quoting from Professor Kent’s post (Nov. 25): “As SAU’s professor Spencer, and Southwestern’s Chadwick and others at LLU and AU etc – illustrate, we have good science going forward and doing research to demonstrate the evidence in favor of creation science.
    As Geanna correctly pointed out, these gentlemen are hobbyists. There are many fossil collectors and there are many who teach about fossils, but doing these things does NOT make one a scientist. If that were the case, my 11-year-old niece would be a scientist.”
    Again on Nov. 26, Professor Kent said: “Excuse me: I didn’t comment on Leonard Brand. I was responding to the mention of Chadwick and Lee. Let’s ask this: what have they contributed to science that my niece has not? They like to dig fossils; so does my niece. They like to talk about their “research;” so does my niece. They talk to college students; my niece talks to schoolmates and Sabbath Schoolmates. One can easily Google the [lack of] publications by these professors (especially as senior authors); one can do the same for my niece.”

    It must be merely presumption on my part to think this might sound a tad disrespectful and to wonder who really is trying to “shame, humiliate or intimidate the Church’s [creationist] biologists…”? Publish or perish says Professor Kent—otherwise you’re teaching credentials are interchangeable with his 11 year old niece. The reality is the “publish or perish” mantra is the public university model, where quite often professors don’t even have time to teach because it truly is, publish or you will never get tenure. Graduate students teach while professors scramble to get published; thankfully that is not the SDA educational model. The SDA model also expects teachers to support SDA fundamental beliefs as actual beliefs and not discardable myths.

    How have my two children managed to learn to function so well in society—read, write articulate well, show respectful manners, hold down responsible jobs, get accepted at law school—while they’ve been attending one of these backwards SDA universities? One of the schools that actually teaches creation science and creation theology, that hires hobbyists instead of professors, yet the nursing department has an extremely high nursing board pass rate and quite a few medical school acceptances, too. How does that happen?

    On the other hand, perhaps Professor Kent’s comment was intended to pay the highest complement possible, since Christ said only those who are as little children will enter the kingdom of heaven. And that is the most important criterion—not how well our schools or their graduates compete in the Egyptian hierarchy.

    I do agree with Professor Kent that our faith in creation and creation’s God does not come from overwhelming scientific evidence. I don’t expect it ever will. I don’t believe that God functions that way because He asks us to freely choose whether we want to believe in Him or not. If the evidence were overwhelming, there really would be no choice involved. There has to be some degree of “risk” with our choice, some degree of trusting the author and finisher of our faith. But it is not respectful to demean these fine (creationist) professors who are doing their due diligence to accomplish research and to teach science and creation without shredding faith in the process.




    0
    View Comment
  44. Susie, I think Professor Kent’s comments were in response to Bob Ryan’s original comment:

    As SAU’s professor Spencer, and Southwestern’s Chadwick and others at LLU and AU etc – illustrate, we have good science going forward and doing research to demonstrate the evidence in favor of creation science.

    In my opinion–and I think many would agree with me–the best science among SDA professors that favors creation science is emanating from the labs of Drs. Leonard Brand and Paul Buccheim at Loma Linda University, where the professors supervise graduate students, have access to research funding, and are unencumbered with undergraduate teaching. Professor Kent is correcting in noting that Drs. Lee Spencer and Arthur Chadwick unfortunately have published very little in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t done good research. Both happen to be professors in institutions with only undergraduate students and both happen to have heavy teaching loads. It’s very difficult to be a productive scientist–even to do any science at all–when you’re teaching three courses with labs per term to dozens if not hundreds of students, advising students, attending committee meetings, maintaining family relationships, observing the sabbath, etc. There simply isn’t much time available for scientific research.

    If we as a church want our science professors to succeed in creation research, we have to create conditions that are more conducive for them to conduct and publish their research. Our SDA scientists clearly need more time and financial support for conducting their research. I suggest establishing a large endowment providing research funds for SDA professors to conduct original research on origins. The endowment could be controlled by those of you who are conservative in your views and will help conservative professors compensate for the difficulty in obtaining funding for research on origins from conventional sources. Professors could apply for the funds which would be awarded based on merit as judged by a committee. Just think of it: you could establish the Sean Pitman Creation Research Fund or the David Research Creation Research Fund! The availability of such funding for research would likely encourage young, aspiring science students to become professors in SDA institutions.




    0
    View Comment
  45. Alternatively I suggest establishing endowed chairs in various biology departments that are dedicated to professors conducting research on origins. For example, Dr. Spencer at SAU or Dr. Chadwick at SWAU could be given an endowed chair that pays for their salary and, instead of teaching three courses, they would teach only one course and have ample time for conducting and publishing creation research with students. Wouldn’t that be cool! Just think of the possibilities: the Bob Ryan Endowed Chair in Creation Science Research, or the Sean Pitman Endowed Chair in Creation Science Research. Come on guys, instead of just sitting in front of our computers and rebuking our professors, let’s do something POSITIVE for our cause!




    0
    View Comment
  46. So what is wrong with smearing SDA faculty on the internet? I thought that’s what this website existed for.

    Personally, I admire the fact that neither Dr. Spencer nor Dr. Brand have engaged in gossip and character attacks on the internet. If my powers of deduction have failed me, please show where I am wrong.




    0
    View Comment
  47. @Eddie: I’m with you, Eddie. We need to take action, and your solution is something that should have been done long ago in conjunction with the house-cleaning that’s needed…




    0
    View Comment
  48. @ Susie

    The reality is the “publish or perish” mantra is the public university model, where quite often professors don’t even have time to teach because it truly is, publish or you will never get tenure. Graduate students teach while professors scramble to get published; thankfully that is not the SDA educational model.

    Okay…if publishing solid science is not to be the SDA model, and faculty like Chadwick and Spencer are not publishing research that supports short-age and global flood interpretations, let’s be honest. (1) Our Church actually does not produce all this much-touted “science” that leads the creation movement. (2) Let’s not make these men the paragons of creationism we want them to be.

    I do apologize, Susie, for pushing the analogy with my niece too far. Once again, I’m sure these men are capable scientists, and it’s possible–though unlikely in my personal opinion–they will find some groundbreaking support for YEC. There is a reason I sometimes come across as disrespectful, but I’m not going to get into that.




    0
    View Comment
  49. Eddie always seems to offer good ideas. However, my concern with an endowed chair is that once a new position is funded in a biology department, the administration will be able to reduce its overall budget for the department rather than maintain the same funding level and hire a new biologist. That…or fail to increase the budget and add another professor as the program grows. So once again, we’re left with the dilemma–where are those much-needed biologists?

    If the SDA Church wants to maintain viable science at all–and more so if it starts the housecleaning many of you are demanding–there needs to be some very serious planning and a sincere commitment on the part of the Church’s administrators to encourage young students to enter biology graduate programs. Otherwise…well, let’s just say it’s “turtles all the way down” for SDA science. Actually, this degeneration will become a painful reality apparent to all of you soon enough, and it is coming about much more quickly because of Educate Truth. Mark my words.




    0
    View Comment
  50. We don’t need creation scientists for heroes. We don’t need their theories, their “evidence,” or their data. We don’t need 28 “fundamental beliefs,” and we don’t need fundamental belief #6 in particular. We need but one hero, the man Jesus Christ, and what He chose to communicate to us directly. If we truly come to know Him, the Word incarnate, we can never deny Him.




    0
    View Comment
  51. @Professor Kent: We’re with you on the need to financially support and encourage more committed Adventists to enter the fields of Biology. In fact, where do I sign up?

    But we really have a problem with your downgrading the seriousness of the situation by labeling the efforts of Educate Truth and those who demand change as “gossip” and character assasination. Again, look to Biblical examples. Was that gossip and character assasination? Of course not. Then again, I know that I don’t have to remind you to look to Scripture for an example as to how to deal with this. I feel like I’m stating the obvious to someone who knows better. And I’m pretty sure you do. If you don’t (all of us for that matter) measure your solutions/decisions by Scripture and prayer, then we’re all doomed to fall and stumble in our short-sightedness. I don’t think that’s asking too much from a Bible-believing Seventh-day Adventist.

    “We are not to cringe and beg pardon of the world for telling them the truth: we should scorn concealment. Unfurl your colors to meet the cause of men and angels. Let it be understood that Seventh-day Adventists can make no compromise. In your opinions and faith there must not be the least appearance of waverings: the world has a right to know what to expect of us. –Evangelism, p. 179.

    “Never does man show greater folly than when he seeks to secure acceptance and recognition in the world by sacrificing in any degree the allegiance and honor due to God. When we place ourselves where God cannot co-operate with us, our strength will be found weakness.–Testimonies, vol. 7, p. 151




    0
    View Comment
  52. @Phil Mills:

    In response to the question of God’s honesty in creating the world to look “old” when it was a new creation, I pose this thought. Did Adam look like a one-hour old infant upon creation? Were the plans of the Garden of Eden just sprouts and seedlings? Were the animals all cubs, pups and babes? No, from all I can tell, in God’s plan He created things in maturity. And if in fact there is a time gap between Genesis 1:1 and the seven day record of creation, that may account for some of the “old” ages found in scientific research.

    Now I wonder how long will Educate Truth simply carry informative letters, responses and debates? Is it not time the leadership of Educate Truth look at ways to bring about change. I have followed the commentary and responses of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of readers and supporters. We (I) want something to happen. How do we make change occur? Simply supporting what each of us already believes and tweaking each others’ responses is not changing anything at LSU.

    Shane Hilde, are you in a position to write an article for Adventist Review with THE FACTS about LSU? Can you obtain supporting statements from conference presidents, such as Michigan’s president Jay Gallimore, stating their refusal to promote student attendance at LSU? Can you make your article an “open letter” to all fundamental SDA members to write, phone, visit in person, their local president to urge them making this a matter for their local conference committee–to in turn make this a matter for the local union committee–with the hope and prayer it becomes a matter for the NAD committee! I know we are committee-d to death!! Perhaps there is a better avenue, but I believe there are thousands of church members who know nothing of this issue. Remember, our “church” is composed of members who belong to small, isolated churches. Most of our membership is in large churches, but most local churches are small–and isolated. Those of us from the midwest know what small and isolated means. There is no awareness among this group of members. Champions of truth are not few!! We are many, but the champions are not all aware of this issue. The Adventist Review reaches the families who are “fundamental” in their convictions.

    Shane, I urge you to consider what the next BIG step should be for Educate Truth. I sincerely appreciate what you have done and are doing, but it is time to move on–to BRING ABOUT CHANGE!! I pray God will bless you with wisdom and open doors of opportunity for you and your leadership team to go beyond the present point.




    0
    View Comment
  53. Marilyn,

    At the GC session in Atlanta the world church of Seventh-day Adventists voted to update our Fundamental Belief #6 to include explicit language regarding a literal 7 day creation week less than 10,000 years ago – so that it matches the voted and approved “affirmation of creation” statement.

    At the “Yes Creation” seminar held during the GC session the newly elected GC president – Ted Wilson commited himself to fully addressing the LSU problem and stopping the out of control sacrifice-all-on-the-altar-of-evolutionism program they have been promoting there.

    Not only has Elder Wilson addressed the LSU problem personnally but now the AAA group has gone on site to evalute LSU – which is a totally GC owned accrediting activity. We wait to hear about the outcome of that visit.

    With the recent publishing of the LSU student letter of 2006 and also the petition from that same year the AAA group is now informed of historic details that may not have been available for their review otherwise.

    Daniel Jackson – the new President of the NAD has stated his own resolve to getting this problem sovled. What we now have is a “test” to see if the denomination actually owns and operates its own schools – or if our schools have moved away such that they can actively undermine SDA principles and doctrines as if they built their own instititions without the Adventist Church.

    Do our schools “simply volunteer” to hold to some level of integrity regarding the mission and message of the Adventist church – as it may suit the preference of their biology departments case by case, or is there actually legally binding quality oversight and management by the denomination of its own teaching institutions?

    In practice each Union has oversight responsibility for it’s own educational facilities. Who then manages the Union leadership? Is there such a great gulf between the Union and the General Conference that an out-of-control situation like LSU can just mushroom without checks and balances, totally out of step with the mission message and approval of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination? Were the Pacific Union and SECC execs simply “asleep at the wheel” during the decades that the LSU fiasco was maturing or did they actually promote it?

    That remains to be seen.

    I believe that LSU is heavily influenced by the mission and message of the local SECC leadership where it is located, not just by Pacific Union execs. I believe that the local support of LSU in a 200 mile radius or more is dominated by the pastoral selection and Pastoral teaching done in SECC pulpits, and that this same SECC constituency heavily influences Pacific Union leadership. I also suspect that a high percentage of students attending LSU view it as a preferred gateway into LLU.

    LLU (18 miles from LSU) has much more critical mass than LSU – but it too must be affected to some extent by these same local influences. Over time it will likely follow the same course that LSU is allowed to follow.

    If LSU’s biology and religion department – “all for evolutionism” program is left unchecked, the ripple effect will be catastrophic over time because LSU and the SECC – PUC organizers will have created a proven “breakaway scenario” for SDA universities of the future.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  54. For example, Dr. Spencer at SAU or Dr. Chadwick at SWAU could be given an endowed chair that pays for their salary and, instead of teaching three courses, they would teach only one course and have ample time for conducting and publishing creation research with students.

    I see – you mean they would be allowed to conduct actual research in favor of creation science — like they are doing right now with DNA findings in artifacts supposedly millions of years old and Geologic research in favor of the world wide flood?

    What a great idea! (BTW I am in favor of creating even more grant opportunities for their research)

    Oh no wait! – Possibly our evolutionist friends here imagine that nothing happens in creation research within the Adventist denomination unless it is being done by someone here at EducateTruth.

    As I recall – prior to the vote in Atlanta – a few evolutionists came here “imagining” that only a “small fringe element” in the Adventist Church actually accepted the Bible doctrine on origins.

    Reality – what a great idea.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  55. @Professor Kent:

    We don’t need creation scientists for heroes. We don’t need their theories, their “evidence,” or their data. We don’t need 28 “fundamental beliefs,” and we don’t need fundamental belief #6 in particular.

    Sounds like we don’t need the SDA Church much less SDA schools either? Do we even need the Bible? or any empirical evidence at all?

    That may be true when it comes to salvation, since salvation is based on motive, not knowledge. However, this is not true when it comes to giving people a solid conscious hope in the validity of the Gospel’s message here and now…

    We need but one hero, the man Jesus Christ, and what He chose to communicate to us directly. If we truly come to know Him, the Word incarnate, we can never deny Him.

    It was this same Jesus who established the order and organization of the Church and appealed to the empirical evidence in support of the Scriptures as a basis of a solid faith in His own Gospel message of hope to a dying planet…

    You simply can’t have a real conscious “relationship” with anyone outside of a basis in empirical reality…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  56. False teachers may appear to be very zealous for the work of God, and may expend means to bring their theories before the world and the church; but as they mingle error with truth, their message is one of deception, and will lead souls into false paths. They are to be met and opposed, not because they are bad men, but because they are teachers of falsehood and are endeavoring to put upon falsehood the stamp of truth.

    — Testimonies to Ministers, page 55




    0
    View Comment
  57. @ Sean Pitman

    The SDA Church is God’s appointed vessel to bring salvation through Jesus Christ to the world–not salvation through 28 fundamental beliefs, FB#6, physical evidence for a young earth and the flood, and the like. Jesus is what saves and Jesus alone; the SDA Church and all it represents (“truth”) can never save a soul who does not reach out to Jesus.

    You simply can’t have a real “relationship” with anyone outside of empirical reality…

    When was the last time you got an empirical hug from Jesus, Sean?

    Why is it that you don’t speak of Christ, love, forgiveness, or the cross? I think you’re so stuck on your superior knowledge of “evidence” and so hypercritical of the simple faith of others, which you mock, that you have lost grasp of the source of your salvation. It is written, “the righteous shall live by faith.” Tell us once again that I’m teaching falsehood, Sean. Warn us all!




    0
    View Comment
  58. @Professor Kent:

    Sean Pitman

    The SDA Church is God’s appointed vessel to bring salvation through Jesus Christ to the world–not salvation through 28 fundamental beliefs, FB#6, physical evidence for a young earth and the flood, and the like. Jesus is what saves and Jesus alone; the SDA Church and all it represents (“truth”) can never save a soul who does not reach out to Jesus.

    Last I checked, the Church has no power to save at all. The entire purpose of the Church is not to save, but to spread the Gospel message of hope to those for whom salvation has already been purchased.

    Remember now, knowledge, in and of itself, doesn’t save. However, knowledge does have the power to give people hope here and now…

    When was the last time you got an empirical hug from Jesus, Sean?

    Every time I see the evidence of Design in nature I know that there is a God. Every time I read the Bible and see the empirical evidence supported by historical science, I know there is a personal God who loves and cares for me. If that isn’t a “hug from Jesus” I don’t know what is…

    God didn’t have to give us any evidence whatsoever. He didn’t have to tell us anything about why we are here or any reasons for sin and suffering or anything about what He plans to do about it or our bright future in Heaven with Him for eternity. He didn’t have to tell us any of that. He didn’t have to give us any evidence for the reliability of the Bible vs. other flights of fancy – like the Book of Mormon. The righteous could have been saved without any knowledge, in this life, of the Gospel hope. Yet, I’m so glad that I do have this knowledge here and now. How much better this life when one has a knowledge of the Gospel message of hope and the evidence supporting its credibility as a true story of history and of our future life…

    Why is it that you don’t speak of Christ, love, forgiveness, or the cross?

    I do speak of Christ’s love, forgiveness, and the Cross all the time. It is just that without evidence of the reality of these things, they’re just a bunch of just-so stories that have no more power to give people hope than a Santa Claus story told to gullible children.

    I think you’re so stuck on your superior knowledge of “evidence” and so hypercritical of the simple faith of others, which you mock, that you have lost grasp of the source of your salvation. It is written, “the righteous shall live by faith.” Tell us once again that I’m teaching falsehood, Sean. Warn us all!

    Faith is based on the evidence of things unseen professor. Without this evidence, one may be saved, but one will not have a solid conscious realization of this future reality here and now.

    For example, did the disciples of Jesus have more or less faith in the Gospel message after they saw Him raised from the dead? Think about it…

    “We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us… We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” 1 John 1:3 NIV and 2 Peter 1:16 NIV

    Clearly, it was the evidence of their senses, the empirical evidence itself, that gave them their hope and confidence in Jesus as the true Savior and Redeemer.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  59. Dear “Professor Kent”:

    You seem to forget, once again, that neither Christ, His love, His forgiveness, nor His cross would be necessary if Darwinian macro-evolution is the story of humanity’s origins.

    And once again you give evidence of your embrace of the false dichotomy so popular in modern and postmodern Adventism between “Christ” and the “doctrines.” You insist that correct doctrine will save no one. And you are wrong. Over and over again, in Holy Scripture, truth is declared to be the means of salvation (Hosea 4:6; Matt. 4:4; John 8:31; II Thess. 2:13; I Tim. 4:16). Such truth must be internalized within the heart, to be sure, but it is still the means by which God saves men and women.

    You cannot separate Jesus from a literal understanding of the early chapters of Genesis, since repeatedly He made clear in His teachings that He took these events literally. The same holds true for the other New Testament authors. You cannot have the Gospel and evolution too. You cannot embrace Jesus and relegate the Genesis Flood to mythic or mere literary status. It is impossible.

    The longer this discussion proceeds, the clearer it will be that you and all others who think as you do are in the wrong church. It is tragic you insist on putting yourself through the needless pain and agony of living a lie.

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson




    0
    View Comment
  60. @ Sean Pitman

    I wrote, “The SDA Church is God’s appointed vessel to bring salvation through Jesus Christ to the world…Jesus is what saves and Jesus alone; the SDA Church and all it represents (“truth”) can never save a soul who does not reach out to Jesus.”

    And you graciously corrected me: “Last I checked, the Church has no power to save at all. The entire purpose of the Church is not to save, but to spread the Gospel message of hope to those for whom salvation has already been purchased.”

    You have suggested I need to do more thinking on my own, but somehow you are always one up on me.




    0
    View Comment
  61. @Kevin Paulson:

    And once again you give evidence of your embrace of the false dichotomy so popular in modern and postmodern Adventism between “Christ” and the “doctrines.” You insist that correct doctrine will save no one. And you are wrong. Over and over again, in Holy Scripture, truth is declared to be the means of salvation (Hosea 4:6; Matt. 4:4; John 8:31; II Thess. 2:13; I Tim. 4:16). Such truth must be internalized within the heart, to be sure, but it is still the means by which God saves men and women.

    Internalization is key. Knowledge of the truth, by itself, is powerless to save. After all, Satan has more knowledge of the truth than all of us put together. Therefore, one must have a love of the truth which allows one to internalize the truth and make it part of one’s self in order for the saving power of Jesus to become effective within the heart.

    It is for this reason that even the heathen who are honestly ignorant of the life of Jesus, the Plan of Salvation, the Bible, or the Gospel message of hope can be saved – by living a life according to the Royal Law written upon the hearts of all mankind. However, they will have missed out on the blessings to be had by knowing and accepting the Gospel message of hope here in this life…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  62. @Professor Kent:

    I wrote, “The SDA Church is God’s appointed vessel to bring salvation through Jesus Christ to the world…Jesus is what saves and Jesus alone; the SDA Church and all it represents (“truth”) can never save a soul who does not reach out to Jesus.”

    And you graciously corrected me: “Last I checked, the Church has no power to save at all. The entire purpose of the Church is not to save, but to spread the Gospel message of hope to those for whom salvation has already been purchased.”

    You have suggested I need to do more thinking on my own, but somehow you are always one up on me.

    This wasn’t a correction professor. I was actually agreeing with you on this particular point. My disagreement with you is over the importance, or lack thereof, of knowledge of the truth. Just because empirical knowledge doesn’t have the power to save, in and of itself, doesn’t mean that it isn’t important or vital to the Gospel’s message of hope…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  63. Wow, Pastor Paulson!

    I have certainly not forgotten that neither Christ, His love, His forgiveness, nor His cross would be necessary if Darwinian macro-evolution is the story of humanity’s origins. I have stated dozens of times that I’m a YEC (= young earth creationist), which means I do NOT believe in Darwinian macro-evolution as the story. Where have you been?

    You are right, however, in noting that I believe correct doctrine will save no one. Sean and I are in agreement on this, and his response is right on the mark, far as I’m concerned. I’ll step aside so you can take it up with him.

    Contrary to your assertion, I have never sought to separate Jesus from a literal understanding of the early chapters of Genesis. While I believe the events described are literal, I don’t don’t believe EVERY SINGLE WORD is required to be literal. Even you know full well that “all” in Genesis does not always mean “all.” I have never relegated the flood to mythic or mere literary status.

    And while you insist that I am in the wrong Church, and living a lie, I would say that you have judged me in haste without taking the time to understand my positions–positions that I have made ABUNDANTLY clear. I have stated repeatedly that I’m a devoted SDA, committed YEC, and opponent of those who show disrespect to the Church’s teachings in the Church (I’m convinced that LSU, for example, has had some disrespectful teaching). My issue is with the online abuse of fellow Christians (like Brian Ness, GRI scientists, SAU’s President, the former GC President), and using shoddy science to justify it.

    I’m sorry Pastor Paulson, but I don’t find your extreme prejudice particularly pastoral.




    0
    View Comment
  64. Okay, Sean…I’m glad we found agreement and you were not correcting me. (Truth be told, though, I still have much to learn, as my “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard” many of the mysteries of God’s kingdom and creation.)




    0
    View Comment
  65. Pastor Paulson, I’d like to add this: I’m thrilled that you are a committed Christian (and Adventist), care deeply about Biblical truth, and want to ensure that members of your Church do not stray. I have no doubt that you mean well. I hope you never lose your passion for Jesus and the Church.

    God bless,
    PK




    0
    View Comment
  66. @Kevin Paulson:

    You insist that correct doctrine will save no one. And you are wrong. Over and over again, in Holy Scripture, truth is declared to be the means of salvation (Hosea 4:6; Matt. 4:4; John 8:31; II Thess. 2:13; I Tim. 4:16).

    Hmmmm. As a lifelong SDA I can’t recall ever being told this by a SDA pastor. So only Sabbath-keeping YECs are going to make it to heaven? And as long as I’m a Sabbath-keepig YEC and believe in all the other correct doctrines I can go out and commit adultery all I want and still be saved?




    0
    View Comment
  67. I teach professional communications at a public university. Many of my colleagues are agnostics, if not outright atheists. Their ‘god’ is science, and they are quite vocal about it. Well, that is to be expected at an institution of the world. I know in Whom I believe. What is distressing is to see the world’s teachings have such a stronghold in our own universities. We have chipped away at our beliefs: creation, the 2300 days, prophecy, the divinity of Jesus. And who will God hold accountable? The watchmen on the walls have fallen asleep, and their slumber has been going on for many, many years. I read our publications and I am struck by the post-Modern views and philosophies voiced by our church and school leaders. God help us; we seem to be racing with all our hearts to be exactly like the world. We have forsaken the basic Christian element: a trusting relationship in our God, his Word, and our Savior. In the end, we are all watchmen, and the state of things today show that we, too, sleep. God forgive us.




    0
    View Comment
  68. I wonder whether the dying thief on the cross was told by Jesus that he needed to believe in a 6-day creation week in the past 4,000 years and in a worldwide flood that covered every speck of land before he could be saved?




    0
    View Comment
  69. @Eddie: I think you’re missing the point. Believing in a recent, six day creation is not a requirement for salvation; however, rejecting it could certainly lead to one losing their salvation.

    No one is suggesting that this is a requirement for salvation. It’s revealed truth from God and happens to be foundational to everything else in the Bible. In other words, if God did not create the heaven and earth in six days and destroy the world with a flood, why would anything else in the Bible be true?

    Ellen White said, “The rejection of light darkens the mind and hardens the heart, so that it is easier for them to take the next step in sin and to reject still clearer light, until at last their habits of wrongdoing become fixed” (PP 404). It’s possible to believe in the truth’s espoused in the Bible without believing in Genesis 1-11, but it’s a huge step in the wrong direction and only sets the believer up for doubt and ultimate loss of faith in God’s word.




    0
    View Comment
  70. I wonder whether the dying thief on the cross was told by Jesus that he needed to believe in a 6-day creation week in the past 4,000 years and in a worldwide flood that covered every speck of land before he could be saved?  

    No need to wonder.

    To be saved it is necessary to receive the love of the truth (2 Thes 2:10). The dying thief received the love of the truth or he would not have been saved. To truly love and receive Jesus, not simply in word but in deed and in truth (1 John 3:18) is to receive and to love the truth since Christ is the truth (John 14:6). The dying thief revealed that he had received the saving love of the truth, because he accepted the words of Christ to him without cavil or doubt.

    If we have not yet received the love of the truth, it really doesn’t matter what theories we espouse. We can be as orthodox as the Pharisees or as liberal as the progressive Sadducees, we can be as political as the Herodians or as enthusiastic as the zealots, but none of it will make any difference. We must pray to receive God’s gift of love for the truth.

    Those who knowingly and willingly love and accept the opinions of men more than the plain truths of God’s word have not yet received a love for the truth. We pity them, we pray for them like Jesus did the Roman soldiers who crucified Him, “Father, forgive them ….” We certainly don’t defend them or worse copy them!

    To reject Jesus the Creator is to turn from Jesus the Savior. They are one and the same. To reject the One is to reject the Other. To refuse to allow the word of God to guide our beliefs is to refuse to let the same word that created the world recreate us. It was disbelief in God’s word that caused the fall of our first parents. Disbelief will complete the ruin in their children.




    0
    View Comment
  71. Eddie says:
    November 30, 2010 I wonder whether the dying thief on the cross was told by Jesus that he needed to believe in a 6-day creation week in the past 4,000 years and in a worldwide flood that covered every speck of land before he could be saved?

    Given that the dying theif was a Jew being crucified by the Romans and given that the Jews had not yet come up with the notion of atheism – it is not likely that the dying theif was not aware of the beliefs of his own culture. As Jesus said to the woman at the well “Salvation is of the Jews”.

    They were in rebellion against the Creator – but that does not mean that they went to the great lengths of the evolutionists here.

    Darwinism — the heart and sole of atheism.
    – Provine interview.
    – PC Meyers joins Provine on this POV
    – Dawkins joins Meyers and Provine
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuVSIG265b4&feature=related

    Each person in that video thinks of evolutionism as “science” providing a “positive feedback mechanism” that leads to religion taking the “appropriate place as a side dish rather than the main course”.

    Watch the 10 minute clip for at least 7 minutes – the point will be clear.

    How “facinating” that the same “Evolutionism destroys Christianity” argument that these now atheist scientists promote – is the view that you also find in 3SG 90-91.

    Hmmm a point of “Common ground” between diehard evolutionists and Bible believing Creationists “in real life” not simply hoped for or merely imagined.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  72. I teach professional communications at a public university. Many of my colleagues are agnostics, if not outright atheists. Their ‘god’ is science, and they are quite vocal about it. Well, that is to be expected at an institution of the world. I know in Whom I believe. What is distressing is to see the world’s teachings have such a stronghold in our own universities. We have chipped away at our beliefs: creation, the 2300 days, prophecy, the divinity of Jesus. And who will God hold accountable? The watchmen on the walls have fallen asleep, and their slumber has been going on for many, many years. I read our publications and I am struck by the post-Modern views and philosophies voiced by our church and school leaders.

    Indeed it is a time for the elders at the gates of the temple to sigh and moan over the abominations being dragged into the church as Ezek 9 points out. However the good news is that the church at the GC session in Atlanta has finally taken a stand as if to meet this issue head on. And our new GC president has stated his mission/goal to address the evolution problem as one of his high priority objectives – this year.

    Now is the time for all of the saints to stand together – to lift up our leaders in prayer and to voice our support for them to our conference leadership.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  73. @CBOND
    Yes peer review is what keeps science honest.I think the trouble with our biology classes is that there is no peer reviewed liturature to support a literal recent creation.The teachers can’t teach what isn’t there.One of the questions I would like a theologian to address is, If God did in fact create the world about 10,000 years ago, why did he create it to look like it is millions of years old?Is that not dishonest of God?What possible motivation could he have for lying to us?  

    These statements and the question of a lying motivation for God and dishonesty is just phishing. Are you looking for reasons to be a Christian? The first reason to be a Christian is the foundation that God does not and cannot lie. If you are struggling with this concept you need to spend as much time in Scripture as possible and avoid approaching the topic discussed here. Finish your milk.




    0
    View Comment
  74. I was going to post this as a response the discussion, but I lost what I had typed out a couple of times. So, I am simply going to share some thoughts on the general subjects, without trying to cut and paste their remarks around mine. My first point is that I have always given the Bible and Ellen White a high degree and credibility and authority.

    I grudgingly have come to the conclusion that Ellen White made some unfortunate and significantly incorrect scientific statements. Her promoters trumpet her God-given ability to sort bad contemporary science out and retain only the good. However, there are some theories that I wish she had thrown out with the bad ones. Some of her intellectually indefensible statements are about the amalgamation of man and beast producing certain races of men. I have seen strange attempts to rescue that so it would make sense when laid beside intellectually sound theories. Her views on the causes of earthquake and volcanos are such as to be believed only by the scientifically ignorant or by those who choose to be loyal camp followers. It is appalling that she made the statements she did pointing to eating-meat as the major cause of cholera and when she unequivocally condemned quinine, and people died because of her counsel. There may have also been some who knew that they also needed to wash all food, monitor the quality of the tap water, and establish sanitation setups could have really helped against cholera much more effectively.

    So, do I dare to say that if she got the first things wrong (amalgamation, cholera, and quinine), perhaps some of the other things she had to say about masturbation, marital excess and the inheritable nature of corset-constricted waists. [edit]

    But, even if I can dismiss out of hand everything that is provably wrong scientifically, (you don’t think she actually made some scientific mistakes?) am I then still obligated to accept every detail in Patriarchs and Prophets about the Flood Event and its aftermath and implications? Do I need to pretend to believe things other than I do, spout off the party line, and then research every single dilemma that seems to contradict Patriarchs and Prophets? If I can no longer support the Patriarchs and Prophets story in all its detail, do I have to resign? One more question, How will you staff the college biology departments lose their jobs go, who will teach in their place?




    0
    View Comment
  75. Pingback: Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week? |

Comments are closed.