Here is a bit of good news for Randal Wisbey …

Comment on Four new LSU board members by BobRyan.

Here is a bit of good news for Randal Wisbey and Fritz Guy –

Spectrum will have more of a voice on the LSU board than in the past.

================================
Alvin Kwiram
Kwiram is Professor Emeritus at the Department of Chemistry, University of Washington. He received his BA in Physics and BS in Chemistry from Walla Walla College in 1958, and completed his doctoral work in Chemistry at the California Institute of Technology in 1962. From 1964 to 1970 he was on the faculty of Harvard University, before joining the University of Washington (UW). In the late ’60s he became president of the newly formed Association of Adventist Forums. In 2007 it become known as Adventist Forums (AF). AF also publishes Spectrum magazine. Kwiram wrote “Can Intellectuals Be at Home in the Church?” in September 1976 for Spectrum magazine. Readers might find this of interest in light of the current controversy with LSU.
=============================

Notice that at no point does the announcement of LSU board members include the fact that they are good Christians or that they believe in Adventist doctrine or that they have ever taken a decisive stand for the truth against some form of opposition.

Those qualities “might have been” either an outright requirement or possibly “worth mentioning” in the years surrounding the founding of LLU and LSU – but in the modern PUC and SECC climate – it appears they are not a criteria for selection much less “worth mentioning”.

Any administration that seeks to take up the reins of the runaway process at LSU has its work cut out for it. Without a miracle or two – that LSU horse will simply “stay outside the barn” while calling for an exodus by even more horses.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan Also Commented

Four new LSU board members

This conflict has gone so far, according to an Adventist Review article, that some believe that the university is teaching the “theory of evolution to biology students as the explanation for the origin of life.” This is an example of conflated polemics that arises when the worlds of science and religion collide and wash over each other.

Notice the shell game used by the TE group?

When this issue first came up we got a complaints of the form “How dare you suggest LSU is promoting evolution just by listening to students and seeing the statements to the press, and watching them on video, and seeing the class outline”.

At the same time we also got complainsts of the form “How dare you suggest that promotion of evolution as the real truth about origins by our LSU profs is wrong. Only a fringe group of SDAs would still cling to creationism in this modern age. Give us science not the Bible”.

Now that LSU itself has admitted to its blunder (at least at the board level) we get spin doctoring like you see in the paragraph above – so kindly pointed out to us by Kent.

So many twists and turns to their responses as they try to have it “both ways”.

in Christ,

Bob


Four new LSU board members

Professor Kent: And yet, we recently learned that the LSU board clearly sided against the LSU biologists, and actually manipulated the survey results to make LSU work worse. As T. J. Willey described at Spectrummagazine.com (http://tinyurl.com/3dgfwzd), the Board did what no honest investigator would dare to try: the Board added the “Neutral” option selections with the “Agree” ones, and at other times with the “Disagree,” with the express purpose of augmenting the case against the LSU science teachers.

Q: Did you SDA religion professor explain that praying to the dead is not good Bible doctrine when that subject came up in class? – (which would be the SDA doctrinal position).

–Yes they did explain that point clearly.

A. Strongly agree.

B. Nothing stands out – not a significant point in the class discussion.

C. Strongly disagree.

Students that either strongly disagree or that came out of the class clueless as to the SDA answer on that subject – just “might” get lumped into the same “Well then your professor totally flubbed up” category.

Apparently this idea comes as a huge surprise to some of the folks in the big-left-tent.

in Christ,

Bob


Four new LSU board members

Shane Hilde says:
September 10, 2010 @BobRyan: To my knowledge there was no public announcement regarding the new board members. The information you read above is just copied from bios I found on the internet. All the bios mentioned that they were Seventh-day Adventists. At this point I have little information regarding their faithfulness to Adventist beliefs.

Let us say for one imaginary moment that all of the new board members were Seventh-day Adventists – that believed our 28 Fundamental Beliefs – and were committed to fixing the LSU problem regarding apostasy with respect to FB #6.

Let us say for another imaginary moment that all of the board members that are under disciplinary censure by the board are strict devotees to evolutionism OR else strictly devoted to protecting and enabling the evolutionist agenda at LSU.

Certainly that would be an indication that the LSU board of directors was listening to the voice of the denomination that it serves and positioning itself to take “actual action” in the case of LSU.

Leaves us to speculate about just how far off the mark the reality of the situation on the ground is at LSU relative to the ideal scenario.

in Christ,

Bob


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
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.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

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”.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
Gentlemen,

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.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
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.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
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