it actually does seem like shane is saying we should not be taught any evolutionary views whatsoever

I don’t recall saying evolution should not be taught. It should be taught. It shouldn’t be taught as truth or the preferred world view in an Adventist university though. Of course if the church changes its mind, then by all means it should embrace and welcome with open arms the theory and promote it. Since the church, based on the Bible, believes the biblical creation to be a historical event that happened in the recent past, it wouldn’t make sense for it to be teaching that alternative as truth.

A world view based on the theory of evolution leads to irrationality and inconsistency. This is why we must base our world view on the Bible, because it comes from a rational and consistent mind.

@Eric:

It is our faith in the Bible, which will all be worth it in heaven, that is our only reason to believe. You know full well that if there was evidence for a 6 day creation those professors would be teaching

1. There is no evidence at all that “birds come from reptiles”

2. There is no evidence at all of abiogenesis – anywhere in any site on planet earth.

3. There is no evidence that higher life forms come from lower ones.

The alchemy of spontaneous generation making its big come-back via neo-darwinian guesswork is the same fiction today that it was the first time around.

Yet a few faculty members at LSU are head over heels – trying to evangelize for that junk-science religion every chance they get.

There is a public university missing a professor or two -

in Christ,

Bob

correct me if im wrong but it actually does seem like shane is saying we should not be taught any evolutionary views whatsoever?

@Eric: Yes, we can agree here. We believe the professors who are at odds with the church should find another organization that is more closely aligned with their beliefs instead of causing so much division by proselytizing Adventist youth with their beliefs.  (Quote)

thats not what i was talking about. I was refering to people like you who make a big deal out of something like this and conservative people who are scared of facing the evidence against creation. Right now there is no evidence for a literal 6-day creation, even you know that. It is our faith in the Bible, which will all be worth it in heaven, that is our only reason to believe. You know full well that if there was evidence for a 6 day creation those professors would be teaching it.

Sean,I believe that only a few believing Seventh-day Adventist scientists would agree with you. Richard P. Feynman said, “The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment.” David Hilbert, the mathematician who taught Einstein how to derive the equations of general relativity, believed that all science should be reduced to mathematics. I see the merit of their scientific philosophies and reject your ultra-fundamentalism. Instead of defining science with the certainty of irrefutable and unambiguous ideas, you want to reduce scientific creationism to what the Bible says. I simply can’t imagine well-informed Adventist scientists accepting your point of view.  

1. Only “a few” will enter the kingdon of heaven. What difference do the relative numbers of believers make? Is THAT why you want to accept evolutionary theory – because it is POPULAR? Because it is RESPECTABLE in the eyes of the ungodly? Science is not about how many people believe, but about what can be demonstrated. Why are so many who are so dogmatic about what science has to say, also so ignorant of what science is?

Here’s a handy rule of thumb: whenever anyone begins to talk about the “consensus of scientific opinion” they have ceased talking about science and have begun to discuss politics instead. Consensus (i.e. popularity) has nothing to do with science, or else Galileo was wrong.

Do you think Galileo was wrong because few agreed with him?

2. Where is the test of abiogenesis? Since the idea cannot be tested, then it cannot be scientific, right? Can it be falsified? No. Then it cannot be scientific, by definition.

3. Nothing in science is irrefutable – as another has already observed – BECAUSE science BY DEFINITION demands that a theorem be refutable. If it cannot be falsified – i.e. refuted, by experiment – then it is not scientific.

Again, why are so many who are so dogmatic on the subject of what science supposedly has to say, so ignorant of what science IS?

4. You reject not the “ultra-fundamentalism” of Shane, but of God. You accept the ultra-fundamentalism of those who deny the very existence of God, and have thus perverted the study of His creation into a philosophy that denies His existence, i.e. that “science, so called” which cannot ever entertain anything but naturalistic explanations. But matter does not explain itself, nor does it produce life. Nor does evolution produce new genetic information necessary to produce new life forms. All cited cases of evolution are in fact losses of information.

Evolutionary philosophy is thus the worship of death as creator.

This is the total opposite of the God worshipped by Seventh Day Adventists, the God who proclaims “I AM … The LIFE!”

Finally, on the subject of “what science has to say” I will tell you for free, science has NOTHING to say. It is a simple methodology, that is all. A disciplined way of examining our surroundings. It says NOTHING.

Scientists, and those who call themselves scientists, have a great deal to say, some of which comports with the disciplines of their profession, and some of which does not.

For example, anyone claiming to be both an atheist and a scientist is merely confused at best, since the positive statement “There is no God” is not scientific, as there is no possible experiment the outcome of which would falsify it.

The only honest answer possible for those who are presently unconvinced as to the existence or non-existence of God is “I dont know”.

Regards
Denver

I still don’t believe you understand what I’m trying to say about equal representation within the school.

I think I do understand. You see, you didn’t even defend you statement of “equal representation” in your last post. You went off on a completely different tangent. So like I said before, LSU does not present creation and evolution equally.

True religion is an acceptance of everyones thoughts and ideas, however wrong they may be. The minute you can accept that, the discontent you have with LSU will fall away.

Jordan,
The Christian churches in North America are losing their youth at a rapid rate. A Barna study on ‘Twenty Somethings’ put it this way.

“In fact, the most potent data regarding disengagement is that a majority of twentysomethings – 61% of today’s young adults – had been churched at one point during their teen years but they are now spiritually disengaged (i.e., not actively attending church, reading the Bible, or praying). Only one-fifth of twentysomethings (20%) have maintained a level of spiritual activity consistent with their high school experiences.”

Entire Creationist ministries, such as Answers in Genesis, are built upon the fundamental premise that exposure to evolutionary theory in secular universities is a major contributing factor to this exodus from Christianity into the world – and that the promotion of a Biblical Creationism in churches and Christian schools is the best way to safeguard youth from the dangerous influence of this ‘scientific’ dogma.

The fact is that more people have abandoned Christianity because of Darwinistic evolutionary dogma than any other devilish lie (accepting perhaps the lie of eternal torment which may have actually been a catalyst for the development of Darwinism).

Exposure to evolutionary theory in the context of Creationist apologetics and Creation Science, is a sound enterprise. Exposure to evolutionary theory in the context of a supposedly Creationist university (LSU) where theistic evolution is instead promoted, and special creationism undermined – is a very dangerous enterprise. A lie of the Devil, prefaced by prayer, and proclaimed to be God based – is definitely ‘the worst form of infidelity.’ Would you have our students protected within the realm of ‘christian morals and ethics’ – while at the same time exposed to the ‘worst form of infidelity?’

Christians are not called to ‘accept everyone’s thoughts and ideas.’

“Error is never harmless. It never sanctifies, but always brings confusion and dissension. It is always dangerous. The enemy has great power over minds that are not thoroughly fortified by prayer and established in Bible truth.” {CW 46.2}

I minister to the widest variety of religious professions in a state prison setting. From Satanist to Adventist and everything in between. My job is to model the love of Christ to them. To advocate for their God given religious freedom. Not to ‘accept their beliefs.’ If I did that, I would be a universalist madman.

The second angels message has been abandoned by many so-called Adventists. The call to come out of Babylon is a call to abandon the wine of its errors and embrace Bible truth instead. It is not a call to ‘accept everyone’s beliefs’ – to embrace a thoroughly interfaith universalism. Our universities are not meant to be a marketplace of errors for our children to become more ‘open minded’ and less Adventist.

Perhaps you have not read all of the evidence on this site; but evolution has indeed been presented at LSU as something that should be believed, and special creationism as something that is unscientific. Numerous persons on this site have stated that they would much prefer to send their children to a secular university where science professors boldly state their beliefs about Darwinism – than an ‘Adventist’ University where science professors practice the worst form of duplicity, compromise and infidelity – subtly, and not so subtly undermining the most fundamental of our beliefs.

If our universities ‘accept’ theistic evolution, then they should in all good conscience remove the expression ‘Seventh-day’ from their title.

@BobRyan:

If in fact they – or other students in the class were inclined to think of God’s statement on origins in that way – was there an effort in the class or in some class to address the concerns that the students had? Something along the lines of – “well since it appears that there is some concern among a few of our class members that the Bible position on origins may be lacking when it comes to actual science – we have come up with a helpful “science and the Bible” program that we will focus on to help address those concerns” – ?

For example 2 areas of helpful focus might be
1. Demonstrate that the Bible text cannot be bent to support evolutionism and still maintain strict adherence to Bible exegesis – letting the text speak for itself.

2. Demonstrate the need for “critical thinking” and provide proven junk-science efforts by evolutionists in the past to hoodwink the general population with what is now confirmed and proven fraud and misdirection.

3. Demonstrate the difference between what atheist evolutionists like Collin Patterson claimed are “stories easy enough to make up … about how one thing came from another” to prop up evolutionism – based on the fossil record – vs “actual science”.

4. Help students focus on the salient goals of evolutionism in both the areas of abiogenesis and also the macro results where “birds come from reptiles” — fiction on the part of evolutionists never seen in nature, never observed in the lab.

@Pastor Cynthia Clark:

Of course we address the issues and concerns from all angles. My lesson plans are very thorough and complete, filled with opportunity for “critical thinking” and self reflection. These boys were not reflecting their own opinions, they were demonstrating how they thought the non-Creationist community views our beliefs. The whole unit addressed these issues.

As I stated in my response to Shane, the video was not the complete project. In fact the video was not the assignment. These boys took it upon themselves to demonstrate how they believe the world looks at creation. I think they did a good job. As Creationists and as Christians we need to live the love of Christ on this earth and be the joy that is Christ or the “world” will view us as hypocritical and silly.

As Christians we have a responsibility to understand what we believe and why.

Then it must be frustrating to see your creationist-believing students going off to LSU only to get evolutionism force-fed as if “you cannot go into the field of science” if you do not “believe in” evolutionism.

(Getting back to Jordan’s point).

Have you had time to reflect on that – to explain the athiest-centric components to the doctrine of origins promoted in evolutionism and to warn them that they will face this not only in public universities but also in a few of our own Adventist universities?

In public universities Adventist students may simply choose to excuse professors for their ignorance about God’s view of origins, but what about those students who might face that problem at LSU – how did you prepare them for that?

Did the lessons, the tools, the skills, the exercises that you gave them anticipate the more difficult problem of fully compromised ADventist professors demanding that the students accept that the Bible is wrong?

E.G. White says in D.A. p22 that “Force has no place in God’s plan.” I teach this to my students. God does not force us in to the kingdom or into the SDA fundamental beliefs. We have a responsibility to live in reflection of the kingdom that is to come, and in so doing we offer each other encouragement. My students leave my classroom knowing that Jesus is their Savior and that the SDA church welcomes them into its membership if they choose.

Indeed – we can all choose to be born-again Christians and follow the truth instead of embracing rebellion against God’s Word – against the One who says He “IS the way the TRUTH and the Life”. No question about that.

No worries Bob, I prayerfully offer hope and truth to my students within the SDA required curriculum for Academy students. This Creation/beliefs unit falls in the Senior year as they prepare to “face the world” outside our protective classrooms.

Glad to hear that !

My concern is that parents and students that leave our Academy settings considering them to be “our protective classrooms” just “might” think of Seventh-day Adventist LSU biology classrooms as a continuation of “our protective classrooms” only to find that they are getting full-on public university indoctrination into believing in the atheist-centric views on origins promoted as the right answer for origins with Adventist professors pronouncing that the Bible is wrong “as if that was a good thing”.

in Christ,

Bob

@Jordan Blackwelder:

There are classes within the science department that do teach evolution, and then there is the religion department which teaches a recent creation. So it can be said that there is an equal balance of creation and evolution ideas. If one does not like the views shared in the science department, and cannot accept some of the facts presented, than the department is not for you and there are plenty other classes that you can take at LSU.

In that fiction – the “balance at LSU” consists of the science department being fully opposed to the religion department – (meaning the religion department should have started “educatetruth.com” a long time ago). But as the religion department’s own Fritz Guy has pointed out in published statements – there is no such thing as the LSU religion department not embracing evolutionism as the right answer for origins.

And in the chaos proposed above – the solution is that students “should not go into the field of science” if they agree with the Bible instead of with the atheist-centric doctrines on origins being preached by evolutionist evangelists employed by the LSU biology deparment.

Even more “instructive” is that the model above exposes one of the unique distinctives of having evolutionist evangelists operating from inside the biology department of an Adventist educational institution. You can model for your Adventist students the example of being a fully compromised yet respected and affirmed Seventh-day Adventist thought leader, when it comes to the doctrine on origins – just in case those students imagined that Seventh-day Adventists cannot also embrace evolutionism.

Hmm .. how “instructive” for the unbiased objective reader.

@Shane Hilde:

I (know) for a fact that not all the religion professors at LSU endorse a literal six day creation in the recent past. The dean of the school of religion doesn’t even believe the biblical account of creation. I’m sure he believes in a creator God, but not one who did it recently and in six days.

The university claims to endorse the church’s position, but yet employs professors who do not. Thus someone wanting and Adventist world view taught in the science classes cannot get what they’re paying for. You’re right though they should go somewhere else.

Indeed – as we also saw when Walla Walla encountered this same problem in years past – both departments typically get on the same page when evolutionists gain enough of a foothold to come out in public in their promotion of evolutionism at one of our universities.

Here is a quote from LSU web site says this about the school of religion. Look for the part where the religion department claims to support the mission and doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist church.

The School of Religion is committed to providing general religious studies for all students in every part of the University. Based upon the central Christian belief in one God, Creator of the world and Redeemer of mankind, these studies explore the Bible as the inspired Word of God, provide instruction in Christian faith, examine the history and mission of the church, and offer guidance for the Christian life.

Email the Dean of the School of Religion John Webster or the administrative assistant, Suzy Kaspereen.
http://www.lasierra.edu/index.php?id=246

Now curiously enough, when Jordan’s definition of “balance” consisting of a religion department fully opposed to the biology department’s doctrines on origins at LSU does not turn out to be factually correct, we are treated to the explanation of why “that too” is a good thing.

@Jordan Blackwelder:

In a sense I am glad that not all of the religion teachers (or any teacher at LSU for that matter) believe in the same exact things. How would that get students to go and find the truth for themselves if they are force fed what the SDA church believes. This is the college level where students should be allowed to question and be challenged by new thoughts and ideas while still being protected within the realm of christian morals and ethics. By not allowing students to ask questions and search for truth themselves how does one gain knowledge and grow as an individual?
…
If you cannot see that the diversity within LSU is a good thing than you have completely lost sense of true religion, and it is the unity within the diversity thats separates this college from any other. True religion is an acceptance of everyones thoughts and ideas, however wrong they may be. The minute you can accept that, the discontent you have with LSU will fall away.

Jordan has helped the reader see the direction this is going. The self-conflicted Universalist Unitarian concepts of “every idea is ok and is promoted” is being offerred up on the one hand – while “bible is totally wrong” is to be accepted as an absolute mandate in the LSU biology deparment.

It is truly facinating to watch just how far this evolutionist program is taking the argument!

Now comes the approval of the goal of LSU being “the best public university that Adventist tuition, tithe and offering dollars can buy”

This is the part NOT at all unique to LSU among it’s sisterhood of public universities.

@Jordan Blackwelder:

The process of hearing something that doesn’t match up with what you believe drives you as a student to see what the differences are, thus making the student wiser.

The science professors never say in their class that, “this is what you should believe and creationist ideas are completely wrong” instead they present the material (which students need to know if they wish to do anything within the field of science) and say “this may not be what you believe but you must make your own opinion on it.”

As already noted – that “benefit” can be gained at every vanilla public university in the land for half the cost.

in Christ,

Bob

Jordan Blackwelder wrote:

By not allowing students to ask questions and search for truth themselves how does one gain knowledge and grow as an individual?

Who is suggesting that students shouldn’t be allowed to ask questions and search for truth? Certainly not Shane. Where did you get such a notion?

Of course students should be allowed to ask questions and search for truth as best as they can. However, the whole point of having a Church school is so that the Church’s perspective can be provided in answer to any and all sincere questions. If we as Church members consider that the Church’s perspective is important to share with the world, then why should we hire those persons to teach our children who do not subscribe to this perspective? – who go about actively undermining that which we consider to be so important?

Your argument is like someone suggesting that medical students should be exposed to those who subscribe to all sorts of ideas on the practice of medicine, even to those persons who hold ideas about medical practice that are known to be harmful to patients. In other words, our medical schools should hire witch doctors, New Agers, and snake-oil peddlers to teach in the medical school classroom just so that students can better make up their own minds as to how best to practice medicine? Please…

If you really believe in something enough to develop a school to teach your children, you want the beneficial bias of your belief to be presented in your school. This isn’t a matter of suppressing questions. This is a matter of providing thoughtful and well-reasoned SDA-based answers to those questions. The student can still be taught how to think for his or herself at the same time, but bias cannot be avoided and is not necessarily bad. Presenting the student with a bias in a good direction is a very beneficial thing.

I for one believe that the bias that the SDA perspective has to offer, even in science, is an excellent bias for our young people – a bias to which they should be consistently exposed if it is to be effective in influencing their lives for the good…

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com