La Sierra’s misleading PR campaign
November 20, 2009 
206 Comments
By Shane Hilde
In a recent effort to step up its PR campaign against allegations that evolution is being promoted in the biology department, La Sierra posted a video of fourth year Biomedical Science Major, RB, giving her testimony about La Sierra’s biology department.
Ms. B gives a seemingly strong testimony negating the allegations that La Sierra biology professors believe and promote the theory of evolution as the best explanation.
The interview is cut into short segments of Ms. B supposedly answering the questions that are flashed up on the screen. In her segment answering the question “How does the Biology program at La Sierra prepare you for the future,” Ms. B says:
The way that they approach evolution is that this is how it is, this is what it is, a theory, and you don’t have to believe it. But it’s good to know about it so you can argue the creationist view. Because if you’re ignorant about something, it’s really hard to argue the opposite. So its just informative mainly.
Her statement softly echoes a statement from Larry McCloskey’s winter quarter, 2009, Biology 112 syllabus under the section POTENTIALLY CONTROVERSIAL MATERIAL:
It is vitally important for you to realize that this course as a science course is describing evidence from mainstream science, and is not dealing with beliefs. Some will decide they cannot believe the scientific evidence, and it is your right to decide. This is encouraged and supported. If you expect to be competitive in any modern science-based profession, and hope to perform well on standardized or pre-professional qualifying exams, you must simply know what the scientific evidence is, whether or not you believe it.
McCloskey, a devout evolutionist, presupposes that the scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution; however, he reassures his students that they don’t have to believe in the evidence at all. In a presentation from the same class, McCloskey has this on one of his slides:
There is nothing theoretical about the evidence supporting evolution. The research about evolution is ongoing and continues to support and refine Darwin’s original ideas. No data have been found to refute the idea. It is the single unifying explanation of the living world, and nothing makes much, if any, sense outside of this unifying theory. (Periods supplied because the sentences were in bullet points.)
This professor obviously does not approach evolution as just a theory. If any of the biology professors do believe it’s just a theory, then they believe it’s the best theory. Which one of these evolutionary biologists is suggesting that the theory of evolution is good to know “about it so you can argue the creationist view”?
So we’re supposed to believe that McCloskey was teaching evolution so that students could better argue the creationist view? That seems very unlikely considering the above quotations from him. There is no sign that evidence for creationism is even presented in any of the biology classes.
Ms. B’s statement, “So its just informative mainly,” could have packed a little more punch if she wasn’t talking about a biology department that was completely converted to evolutionism. Later, she says:
One of my big things was evolution because at previous institution they taught it as if it were fact. We had lectures from university professors who had lectures like when are we going to get rid of God.
Of course, McCloskey, possibly one of her professors at one point, says otherwise: “There is nothing theoretical about the evidence supporting evolution.” While McCloskey does not speak for the other professors, we can assume that the others, at the very least, believe the theory of evolution to be the better explanation.
When asked how La Sierra teaches about evolution, she said:
They told me, no no, it’s just a theory, it doesn’t mean it’s true. It’s there. Why do you need to know it? If you want to advance in science you need to know these things.
From this statement you would almost think that these professors, while ardent believers in the theory of evolution, are almost apologetic about the idea that evolution could be anything more than a theory. However, this contrasts deeply with Gary Bradley’s statement in an interview with Inside Higher Ed, where he said he wasn’t going to present the theory of evolution to only dismantle it for students. He also called those who believe God spoke things into existence only a few thousand years ago the “lunatic fringe.” Obviously, the theory of evolution is not just a theory for Bradley, and he hardly presents it as such.
In the Biology Capstone class, he gives a 69-slide presentation titled, “Hominin Evolution.” The fourth slide says: “Recent years have shown a dramatic increase in the discovery of hominid species that are intermediate between the great apes and modern humans.” He also has another presentation on the fossil evidence of hominin evolution.
L. Lee Grismer is an expert on the vertebrate life of Baja California, which he argues in his papers has been affected by the “dynamic environmental history . . . over the last 4-5 million years” and that this history “has had a profound effect on the evolution, distribution, and genetic structuring of Baja California’s terrestrial vertebrates.” Check out his book “Amphibians and Reptiles of Baja California, Including Its Pacific Islands and the Islands in the Sea of Cortés.”
None of these professors believe in a literal, recent six-day creation. What professors are Ms. B talking about? Can we really believe these evolutionary biologists are just presenting the theory of evolution to be informative and to prepare students to be competitive in the scientific community? When the theory of evolution is being presented with the heavy bias of these professors to the exclusion of all evidence in support of creationism, then they are no longer just being informative. This type of propaganda only reveals La Sierra’s determination to cover up what their biology professors are only too honest not to hide.
La Sierra can spin their biology department anyway they want, but they can’t cover up the fact their biology professors are undermining the church’s position on origins.
Regarding the following video clip from the LSU PR department:
http://www.lasierra.edu/index.php?id=1213#c1764
This video seems like deliberate false advertising to me. I don’t know how LSU can put out such a video with a straight face given the very direct testimony of LSU professors like Bradley, Greer, Grismer and others who aren’t just teaching “about” the theory of evolution, as suggested by this video clip, but are in fact promoting the modern synthesis view of the theory of evolution as the gospel truth to their students.
Senior LSU biology professor Gary Bradley specifically said, in a public interview with a secular journal, that he wasn’t about to challenge mainstream science for the nonsense notion of a literal creation week … with the use of expletives and a reference to those who believe in a literal creation week as the “lunatic fringe”.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/09/01/evolution
Come on now, why can’t LSU at least admit what its own teachers are actually promoting in their own classrooms? At least be transparent… at the very least be honest.
I’m beginning to have my doubts about any sincere efforts to actually reform LSU on the part of the LSU or even Church leadership. I mean really, if you can’t even admit that there ever was a real problem how can you hope to fix it?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
22
The above transcription of her answer demonstrates that she had received anti-God (atheistic) lectures from evolutionist professors at a “previous institution.” Since these were “university professors,” this may have been a university.
Now, notice her response here:
Coming from such strongly-evolutionist teaching, it surprises me that she would still feel she knew nothing about it, and need to ask her La Sierra professors about it. In another portion of the “interview” she speaks of the strong relationship she has with her professors there, as if they were close and personal friends. Knowing how friends will influence friends….
The whole thing seemed a bit unnatural to me, as if it were staged. If they had wanted to make it appear like a genuine interview, they needed to show the interviewer on camera a time or two as well. With the girl looking off to the side of the camera, and no interviewer ever seen or heard, it’s odd. They should have had her speaking directly toward the camera, as if she were unashamed to face her audience. (I’m not saying she was embarrassed, only that the interview has room for improvement if they want to make a positive impact.)
Erik
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
19
Is Ramona Bahnam talking about the same Biology Department and the same university? Is she talking about a completely different group of professors than the ones who have been implicated? Her presentation is so diametrically opposed to all of the evidence presented on this site one has to wonder.
Instead of students being driven from Adventist colleges because of their experience in LSU’s science department, many of her friends have been instead converted to Adventism through the science professors and program. Instead of presenting evolution as the only rational (factual) explanation for the evidence, she says her professors are saying that it is only a theory that you need to know for professional advancement – and to be able to defend creationism! Instead of the professors undermining the faith of students through the blatant promotion of theistic evolution – they are actually great role models of the Adventist faith who strongly promote science from the standpoint of the Adventist faith. What is wrong with this picture?
The formal response of the board states, “The Board of Trustees has heard and taken to heart the concern that Seventh-day Adventist beliefs and teachings have not been given appropriate priority in biology curriculum and instruction.” This is not the real concern that has been expressed by the concerned grievants. The real concern is that core Adventist creationism has been directly undermined by the blatant promotion of theistic evolution. Since the Board has not clearly articulated the genuine concern, and since they have issued this video which seeks to totally controvert the genuine concern – I would have to conclude that the board has not really taken anything ‘to heart.’
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
20
If the claims of this video are indeed genuine. Then let the biology professors step forward to have their testimonies filmed in corroboration of Ms. Bahnam’s testimony.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
17
Excellent idea. Furthermore, let it be these professors: Bradley, Grismer, and Greer. It would even be nice to see McCloskey make some statement in support of God and Creation, although he has now retired.
One has to wonder if Ms. Bahnam had any of these professors for her classes. Can LSU truly have two sides, so distinctly different, depending on a “luck of the draw” on professors? I hardly think so. If the professors do not all agree, there are still certain courses offered by each one, and any biology major would necessarily come into contact with all or nearly all of the professors (there are less than twelve of them).
Erik
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
20
There is no “problem†with the excellent leadership provided at La Sierra University by Drs. Geraty and Dr. Wisbey. Both previously exercised and now exercise with dignity and integrity the responsibility of leading an Adventist university committed to pursuing the truth—both in science and theology—wherever it leads.
And they certainly are not “spineless†since both of them have stood and are standing resolutely against their misguided fundamentalist coreligionists who seek to turn a fine Adventist university into a Bible college. If there is a problem, it is the problem of the myths and half-truths created and promulgated by the supporters of the EducateTruth web site.
All true Adventists committed to the pursuit of “Present Truth†should actively resist and reject the work of those who wish to follow the example of St. Bernard of Clairvaux and Torguemada in how to deal with contrasting opinions in a religious community.
Well-liked:
24 
13
LSU is being absolutely ludicrous. They’re heaping one wrong thing upon another. Evidence that LSU professors believe & promote evolution is screaming. LSU administration has not addressed the issue since this news came to light. Why? After so many months of giving them the benefit of the doubt, at this point we must assume administration support these professors and their teachings. Administration either believes evolution themselves, or value their positions over standing for truth. I don’t pretend to know the legalities of standing for right in their positions, but as SDA education leaders, SDA truth is what they’re supposed to be supporting! Not only do they support this false doctrine by ignoring discussion or remedying the issues of these professors, they try to smooth it over by letting students publicly lie for them? Where’s the dignity? If you’re going to do something wrong, at least have the decency to not make it doubly wrong by lying. Frankly, I’m disgusted. LSU should acknowledge their lying, remove that humiliating video from their website and finally proceed with addressing the issue of the heretical teachings they’ve allowed. One day these teachers and administrators will stand before God and give an account for leading souls to destruction; however, until that time, we need to work to keep them in check so more souls won’t be lost on our watch. This situation is so appallingly sad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
From my experience at La Sierra, Shane’s article is accurate and well written. When you have staff members who are fully converted to evolutionary ideals, they are not going to teach in a “this is just for your information” way. They are sharing with you their beliefs, and supporting those beliefs with the evidence that convinces them that evolution is true.
I took General Biology 3 with Dr Perumal, who spoke openly about God’s amazing Creation. Dr Perumal did present the material in more of a “this is what the theory says” way. Yet this was following General Biology 2, when we had been indoctrinated with evolutionary theory. When I spoke with Dr Perumal in person, he told me that when he came to La Sierra, he was told that the members of the Biology faculty were Creationists. So what does La Sierra define as a Creationist, and how does La Sierra define Creationism?
While at La Sierra, I have heard ZERO defense for the creationist viewpoint. That is because if those who have presented attempted to do just this, they would be speaking a different language than they are used to.
Shane’s comment “This type of propaganda only reveals La Sierra’s determination to cover up what their biology professors are only too honest not to hide” is correct. The professors at La Sierra are honest and sincere in that they are teaching what they believe. Yet they have come to the wrong place to teach what they believe.
My encouragement to every person reading this is to do what you can to make your voice heard, so that the young people at La Sierra University will be shown the truth. Write letters to church and university leaders, and tell them its time they stand up for truth – God’s truth!
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
19
@Ervin Taylor:
Wherever it leads? – even if it leads away from the stated fundamental positions of the organized SDA Church I suppose? But yet still wishing to be paid by the organized SDA Church? How is that not dishonest toward the stated wishes of the SDA Church as an organization? – toward their employer?
It is fine to be honest about what one teaches. But, when that honesty clashes with the reason why an employer hired the employee, how is it remotely honest for the employee to take a paycheck from an employer for going directly contrary to the employer’s clearly stated wishes? How is this not robbery of the employer’s time and money?
Isn’t it far more consistent and honest to go and work for someone who is actually willing to pay you to teach your honest beliefs? – rather than to expect a paycheck from an employer whom you are actively undermining?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
19
@Victor Marshall:
This is a great idea. I second this suggestion…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
19
This video relates Ramona’s experience La Sierra and it reflects the experience of most every student here! How dare the people of this website attack a student who is simply giving her perception of the Biology department. You go Ramona! Most of us at LSU back you one hundred percent! Ramona has told me how the Biology department brought her closer to God. It is positivity sickening to hear anyone try to discredit this fact!
Well-liked:
23 
10
Adam,
I have not, and do not, question whether she has been brought closer to God. Many things, fierce trials and opposition from our Enemy included, can bring us closer to God. Furthermore, I am happy to hear her testimony to this. However, I have also heard of students becoming atheists while studying at LSU. We have also heard how strongly naturalistic evolution, which denies our Creator God’s account of Creation, is being taught–by about half of the professors in the department.
What we are questioning is not her testimony, but the larger picture which it portrays of LSU. In the parable of the blind men and the elephant, each man gave a true testimony based on personal experience–but the conclusion that one might be led to through it was inaccurate. In the same way, I do not question Ms. Rahnam’s testimony–I question its scope and applicability to the entire department.
There are obviously two sides to the department. Some teach evolution. Some teach creation. We here are thankful that Ms. Rahnam has been taught the latter, and can witness to the fact. We remain concerned, however, for those on the other side, who have an opposite experience.
Erik
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
17
@Adam:
No one is trying to discredit any student’s personal experience here. The problem is not with the students at LSU – who are innocent in this whole affair. The problem is with the science professors and administrators of LSU who are in fact promoting the theory of evolution as truth in their classrooms – and telling their students that those who beleive in a literal creation week are lunatics. That’s the problem here.
This is an undeniable fact. LSU science professors have gone on public record to this effect. Yet, the LSU administration has seen fit to retain these professors despite their open opposition to the clearly stated position of their employer in support of a literal 6-day creation week as the truth about the origin of life on this planet. These professors are telling their students that this view, this view of their own employer, is just plain nuts…
The LSU PR department is taking advantage of innocent/naive students like Ramona to present a picture of the LSU science department that isn’t remotely reflective of reality – of what LSUs professors are actually teaching their students about the truth of Darwinism and the lunacy of literal 6-day creationism.
The attempt to hide or gloss over this reality on the part of LSU’s PR department and overall administration, especially with the use of innocent students like Ramona, is what is blatently dishonest and very disturbing…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
21
This coming from the guy who called her account “staged”! The fact of the matter is that Ramona did not encounter anything like your “Enemy” while at La Sierra. She encountered Christ and this so called Christian site has the audacity to imply that she is a lier! Your argument for the scope and applicability can be applied to her argument as well. The scope of this site has been deplorably narrow! I have not once seen an article expressing the positive aspects of La Sierra education on this site. Perhaps the experiences of some your stars such as Bishop may have led YOU to an inaccurate conclusion. Ramona was giving her EXPERIENCE and this article has called it a lie! If Hilde has any thread of Christianity in him and can see at all the that he has defamed the conversion of a fellow Christian he will remove this article at once.
Well-liked:
24 
6
@Adam:
Tell me Adam, can you, with all honesty and sincerity, claim that none of the science professors at LSU are actively promoting the theory of evolution as the most likely explanation of origins to their students? – That none of the science professors express to their students the idea that the 6-day creation week, as espoused by the SDA Church, is a bunch of nonsense?
If you can do that, then I will recant and this website will shut down…
Of course, you know that I’m right here. If you are honest with yourself and with me, you will admit that many if not most of the science professors at LSU do in fact believe in and actively promote the theory of evolution, taking place over millions of years of time, to their students in their classrooms at LSU…
Therefore, for the PR department of LSU to present a video suggesting otherwise is nothing more than false advertising. You know it, and I know it… and so does the administration of LSU.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
20
Mr Hilde,
They in no way “used” Ramona! They approached several random different students and asked if they would be interested in doing an interview expressing their view of Biology. They were willing to take anyone’s view but Ramona was most eager to share her experience as it is one that the adventist community rarely gets to hear if they are on your mailing list. This is the view that Ramona expresses every day when I see her. This is not a gloss over; it is her reality! Dissect the professors if you must but don’t attempt to discredit her statements! The students of La Sierra will not tolerate the campaign against our school much longer. Especially if when one of us comes forward to tell how exited we are about our experiences, our statements are called lies!
Well-liked:
21 
5
@Adam:
Romona was used in the sense that the PR staff took advantage of her experience and testimony to present statements about the science staff at LSU which they know is not truly reflective of the entire science department at LSU – giving a false impression to prospective students and parents of what all of the science courses at LSU are really like…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
20
@Adam:
I do not question her spiritual experience at all. I make no judgment about her personal relationship with God.
But what she said about the biology professors contrasts greatly with what they have said. I can only assume that perhaps she is talking about some creationist professors that I am not aware of.
I have no reason to believe Ramona lied. I have every reason to believe LSU is taking advantage of her experience with unnamed professors whom none of us know about to paint a false perception of what the professors are doing.
You might not know the answer to this question, but what professors is she talking about? I want to know the ones who teach it just to be informative and think that it’s just merely a theory. I want to know which ones are promoting creationism in their classroom. Can LSU call forward one biology professor that supports the church’s position on origins?
My only problem with what Ramona said are the comments she made that are glaringly opposite of what the professors themselves have said. Those aren’t all my words. I’m quoting LSU biology professors.
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
19
Yes her comments were opposite of the picture that you have painted. But Ramona took those class with the same professors that you have been quoting and her experience was different from that picture. So obviously something they are doing is right… you just haven’t looked for it. I have also found my spiritual life to have been blessed by ALL the La Sierra faculty. I would put forth that you have used louis bishop. You have taken one student’s testimony and exploded it into a controversy! What La Sierra is trying to do through this video and the student testimonials is show that the larger picture is not the one you portray! I am tired, Mr Hilde, of telling my Adventist friends that I go to La Sierra and being met with looks that imply I must be some kind of a radical to be comfortable there! I am also tired of telling people in the Riverside community that I go to La Sierra and being met with questions about how the Adventist church is cracking down on it’s University and trying to control it’s curriculum. My religion is being portrayed as one that cannot be exposed to scientific data without starting a witch hunt and my school is being portrayed as a stronghold of atheists both of which are completely false!
Well-liked:
18 
5
@Adam:
Also, I’m aware that Ramona works with Lee Greer in his DNA Sequencing and Genomics Laboratory. On June 6, 2009, Greer gave a presentation at a Loma Linda Sabbath School on genetic evidence which, according to him, supports the theory of common descent. He is a self proclaimed evolutionary biologist. He has actively promoted the idea the accounts of creation in Genesis are contradictory and allegorical.
What’s my point? Anyone who spends class time with him should know what he teaches and believes.
You said: “Yes her comments were opposite of the picture that you have painted.”
So you’re claiming that what Ramona said in relation to the way evolution is presented doesn’t conflict with what the professors admit they believe teach?
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
19
Exactly my point! How is it that she works with Dr Greer and surely spends a lot of time with him and yet she has a completely different picture than yours? Have you worked for Dr Greer or taken a class with him? Have you spent any time assuring yourself that you have a clear understanding of his views? Why is it that Ramona’s views are the lie? In Ramona’s experience it would seem that this website is the one bordering on outright lies! I have personally spent a great deal of time understanding all the Biology professor’s views both while in class with them and working for them and I have found NONE of them to be in contradiction with my beliefs.
Well-liked:
19 
7
Hi Adam,
If you are tired of attending a university that is unsure of what it stands for, leave. If you want a university course that teaches evolution as the preferred view of origins, then why wouldn’t you go to a public university? Cheaper, better reputation. How is this a difficult decision.
It is interesting that when this controversy gathered momentum, that most of the other Adventist Universities were only too happy to publicly state they support the church’s view with origins. But not LSU. They are not sure where they stand. The longer this facade continues the more chance LSU has of becoming irrelevant – in both the public and church’s eyes.
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
19
@Adam:
You ask a very good question. I have not worked with Greer, but I have communicated at length with the family. Greer has made his views very clear in his publications and lectures. So clear in fact, I have never been corrected by him.
He does not believe God made the earth and life in six literal days in the recent past. Neither do any of the other three professors I’ve mentioned.
This doesn’t contradict your beliefs? Do you believe, like them, in common ancestry? That all life as we know it has evolved over millions of years from a single single organism?
Are you denying that these professors believe and teach this?
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
19
@Adam:
So are you also an evolutionist like these mentors of yours? – or at least strongly sympathetic to the modern evolutionary perspective on origins? After all, these professors you speak of are theistic evolutionists, believing that life has evolved over millions of years of time – right?
It’s a simple yes or no question… Why avoid directly responding to such questions?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
16
@Adam:
Your school is not being portrayed as a stronghold of atheists, but of theistic evolutionists. This portrayal is quite accurate – as has been publicly admitted by several of LSU’s science professors.
Are you not aware that one of the LSU science professors publicly noted that those who believe in a literal creation week are the “lunatic fringe”? Do you share that sentiment? If so, that is part of the problem those like Shane and myself are concerned with.
It isn’t that LSU is exposing students to the opinions and beliefs of mainstream scientists, but that LSU professors are telling their students that the mainstream scientific perspective is the truth – the most obvious scientific interpretation of the available data. That is what is disturbing about the LSU science curriculum… it is fundamentally opposed to the fundamental positions of the SDA Church as an organization.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
14
I am tired of my university being misrepresented! La Sierra has been is very much an institution that is supporting my Adventist religious beliefs. I fully support the universities decision not to reaffirm due to pressure from this group. The students studying biology have not risen and complained about the way evolution is taught. The school owes it’s allegiance to us not to you. We are Adventist and we are comfortable with the way it is taught. They are not challenging our beliefs but rather reaffirming them yet when we express this view we are called liers! If you had read the boards recent statement you would know exactly where we stand.
Well-liked:
16 
5
No is the simple answer to your question and I did not avoid answering it. Are you going to begin smearing my religious life now? I thought I stated quite clearly that my Adventist faith was strengthened by these people. As such I must have Adventist faith.
Well-liked:
15 
5
Wow, the anger seems to be turned up a notch in this article.
I remain an Adventist and a Christian because of some of the very professors you are attacking. I have very fond memories of some very spiritual times and some excellent Sabbath School classes and discussions with these professors. Not only that, but they taught me what I need to know to launch me in a career in biomedical research. Now that I am a professor, I rely on some of the wisdom and knowledge gained by studying under these guys. I’d be very happy to have students from LaSierra come study under me as graduate students. I am certain they are learning the material they need to know to be able to continue on in a career in biology research.
When you attack McCloskey’s lecture material, what factual errors were there? Were any of his examples of speciation wrong? Did he misrepresent the Hardy-Weinberg principle? What are the scientific errors in the lectures? And you keep quoting his statement “There is nothing “theoretical” about the evidence supporting evolution”. Well, in the original slide the word evidence was underlined; your quote leaves it out and that changes the flavor of the statement. Evidence is evidence; it is real, it is measurable, it is not theoretical. That was his point.
Roger
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
5
@Adam:
The board’s recent statement does not address the fact that LSU maintains science professors who are teaching their students that the theory of evolution is true and that the literal 6-day creation week is ludicrously false.
That is what many of LSU’s science professors are teaching their students. Not even you are trying to deny this obvious fact. You simply argue that you are fine with it…
It doesn’t matter if you along with the entire student body are comfortable with this theistic evolutionary perspective. This perspective is directly counter to the fundamental stand of the SDA Church as an organization. It is therefore a subversive stand on the part of paid employees of the SDA Church – which your professors are. They are therefore not doing right by their employer and something needs to be done about it.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
15
Thanks for your courage Adam. It’s deeply ironic to me that these ‘defenders of the students of La Sierra’ in the abstract have to savagely attack the students of La Sierra… ‘we had to destroy the village in order to save it’.
I hope people are reading and understanding the reality.
Well-liked:
17 
5
If you were the sole representative of the literal creationist then yes I would have to agree with him. As a participant in the LSU curriculum, I would strongly disagree with your portrayal of it. They teach mainstream science without indicating that it is truth. That has been my experience as well as Ramona’s and I still have a major problem with you calling it a lie. On a final note, this distinction between atheist and theist evolutionary has not been made sufficiently clear for the people in the Adventist community that I intact with. I must reiterate that your misrepresentation of La Sierra has become a huge liability that I and my fellow students will not much longer stand without action. The school is ours and we will determine the direction of the academics that are taught here. If we, normal and faithful Adventist students, are contented with our school, we would greatly appreciate your excusing yourself from the scene. If you do not do this, the very least you can do is listen attentively when one of us has something to say instead of writing articles dissecting our statements and calling us liers.
Well-liked:
16 
4
@Adam:
Let me get this straight. You don’t believe that Bradley, Grismer, Greer, or McCloskey are theistic evolutionists? You don’t think that they believe that life has existed and evolved on this planet over the course of millions of years of time? Is that really what you are trying to tell me? – Come on now… Don’t try to play semantics with me.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
5 
16
@Adam:
Come on Adam. I’ve heard Lee Greer promote the truth of evolutionary theory with my own ears. I’ve read the class notes with my own eyes for several other LSU professors. I’ve read the public statements of LSU professors strongly asserting the truth of evolutionary theory. The evolutionary perspective of these teachers simply cannot be seriously denied – nor can the fact be denied that they do in fact challenge the literal 6-day creation week in their classrooms and from other public forums.
Your suggestion that this is mistaken shows either your naivete or your deliberate suppression of what is otherwise overwhelmingly clear. All you have to do, for example, is go and ask Lee Greer if he actually believes in a literal 6-day creation week as the origin of all life on this planet. He’ll tell you. He’ll be more than glad to fill you in on his opinion that the Genesis account is allegorical at best and internally contradictory. He doesn’t hold back with such opinions. I have first hand knowledge of this.
So, don’t try to tell me that I’m simply ignorant of what is actually being taught at LSU.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
17
Mr Pitman,
In my and I dare say Ramona’s experience, the data supporting evolution was simply presented. The only assertions I have seen have been the support for the need to TEACH evolution not BELIEVE it. I cannot attest to what Grismer believes but then again I don’t know what business it would be of mine. What I do know is that the way that he teaches evolution was simply to present me with the facts. You are ignorant of what students who study biology come away with which in my experience is a greater understanding of life as it was created. Ramona’s testimony showed that this was what she got and you would try to suppress this. By her own admission she is a new to our faith. Have you no conscience as to what will happen when she sees this article? I can only imagine that it will be shattering to her to see her conversion story called a lie in a public forum. Please please take this down before she hears of it! Fight this on a different front if you must. Even if your portrayal of LSU was completely correct and the Biology department was breeding atheists why would you drive away the one convert that has come from it?
Well-liked:
15 
3
@Adam:
I’ve known many LSU students who have come away with a very different picture and given very different testimony than you and Ramona are giving here. Again, I mention that I am very familiar with what is actually presented as “fact” in LSU science classrooms and it is very biased toward the evolutionary perspective as “the truth”. I also know that many of the science professors presenting these “facts” are themselves believers in the truth of theistic evolution and actively promote these beliefs to LSU students. Don’t even try to tell me that you are not aware of the theistic beliefs of someone like Lee Greer who is very public about his opinions in this regard.
If these guys were so supportive of the SDA perspective on origins, as you suggest, why is there absolutely no mention of the problems with evolutionary theory or any evidence in support of the SDA perspective on origins in their lecture notes? – nothing substantive at all in this regard. Why not?
Ramona’s conversion story is not being called a lie in this forum or anywhere else that I’m aware. That is your misreading of what is actually being said here. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out to you, it isn’t Ramona’s story that is being questioned in this forum, it is the use of her story by LSU suggesting that it is reflective of all LSU’s science teachers and classes that is being questioned since it is so inconsistent with what these teachers have themselves expressed – in public.
I’m sure Ramona is a fine Christian young woman and very sincere and honest. It is a shame that the PR staff at LSU have tried to use her honest testimony in a less than forthright and transparent manner regarding the actual position of many of the professors at LSU. If they remove this video clip from LSU’s website or substantively address the promotion of evolution as truth in their science classrooms, this thread will be removed…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
15
@Bravus:
This is expected coming from someone who is admittedly a theistic evolutionist and has often argued against the stated fundamental positions of the SDA Church organization…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
17
It is gratifying that more and more LSU students are discovering and speaking out on this blog and elsewhere to expose what is really behind the bashing of LSU and particularly the Biology Department. The self-appointed and self-proclaimed guardians of Adventist orthodoxy are finally being exposed for what they are. Speaking of lies, the true motivations of those attacking LSU are becoming more and more obvious every time they post their protestations.
Well-liked:
19 
9
“Coming from such strongly-evolutionist teaching, it surprises me that she would still feel she knew nothing about it, and need to ask her La Sierra professors about it. In another portion of the “interview†she speaks of the strong relationship she has with her professors there, as if they were close and personal friends. Knowing how friends will influence friends….”
I would just like to respond to this quote by saying, Erik if you listened to and watched the interview carefully enough and thought about what you were going to post as a comment, you would have noticed that her question about evolution to her La Sierra professors was more of a wondering about the aspect of evolution from a religious perspective and not of the fundamentals of it.
She was obviously not influenced by her previous professors because as she mentioned in the interview, she got baptized as a seventh day Adventist, which clearly means that she is religious. As a future doctor she is required to be open minded and know about different views in order to be successful.
And your comment about how she did not look at the camera, as if she was staged. I can assure you she is not fake or staged and she was asked to do that. She will face anything that comes her way and is not afraid of anyone. God is on her side.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
4
@Ervin Taylor:
Come on Erv. As an outspoken evolutionists yourself, surely you must support the request for open and honest transparency regarding what is actually being taught as truth in the classrooms of SDA schools? – right? Surely you aren’t suggesting, as Adam is, that theistic evolution isn’t actually being promoted from the LSU science classrooms – are you?
Let’s at least get all the card out on the table here. Why not be as open, honest, and transparent as possible? If theistic evolution is all that it’s cracked up to be, why not be proud of the fact that LSU is promoting it in many of its classrooms? Why try to hide this fact?
Surely you, Erv, of all people, would applaud such a move – right? You believe that the only real science is evolutionary science – that the teaching of 6-day creationism in a science classroom would be ludicrous – right? Why not just admit this upfront and honest like?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
20
Mr Pitman,
No matter how you try to deny it, the implication of this article is that her view of the biology department is a lie! Ramona tells her story to everyone she meets from homeless people to those she works with. When we heard she had volunteered to do it we knew it was a natural thing for her to want to be publish her story as much as possible because she is so enthusiastic about it. You are implying her faith supporting experience at La Sierra is either fabricated or due to naivete. She is a biology major. Clearly she has experienced biology as much as anyone who attends La Sierra. How can you say that her experience is any less valid than bishop’s? How is it wrong for the school to use her testimony if that is really what she a well qualified observer believes? Furthermore how can you punish her on this site by exposing her to this kind of criticism? Take it down!
I refuse to dialogue further regarding the teaching of evolution at my school until this is removed. I stand by what I have said but I cannot engage with people would stoop so low. How can you do this in the name of Christ?!
Well-liked:
19 
7
Mr Taylor, Bravus and Leona,
What can we do about this? There are many students who are outraged by this site, but we feel absolutely helpless to get it taken down. Often when we post it is removed and there is no link to an opposing petition for us to sign or I am sure we would have far surpassed their 6000 signatures. Can we have an opposing site? One that actually reveals the truth?
Well-liked:
17 
5
I completely agree, and we should seriously consider constructing an opposing site, because they are directly attacking an innocent student that expressed her opinions in a free country and is totally having to pay the price by being humiliated and criticized for her thoughts. where is the Christianity in that? i do not think evolution is our problem anymore…
Well-liked:
16 
5
@Adam:
It isn’t a lie on her part. It is, however, a deliberate mischaracterization of LSU on the part of the administration and PR department who know full well that many of the science professors at LSU believe in and promote the modern synthesis view of origins in their classrooms.
I’m not arguing that Ramona’s experience is any less valid that Bishop’s. What I’m saying is that it is not the full picture – and the LSU administration and PR department know this. Yet, they are willing to present this testimony as if it was the full story – despite the opposing testimony of many other students and the public statements of the science professors as well – which are not advertised at all on LSU’s website or anywhere else by LSU’s PR department. Why not? Isn’t this opposing evidence, which is overwhelming, also valid? Hmmmm? Why not allow Louie Bishop to present his experience in the science department? Why not have the professors themselves present their own perspective on what is and is not “valid” science? especially regarding the notion of a literal creation week? – on LSU’s website? Is that just too much to ask?
No one is twisting your arm here.
I’m just amazed at how many people who take on the label of SDA argue so strongly for the notion of the evolutionary view of origins as the best scientific story of origins for life on this planet. This just amazes me! I never thought I’d see the day. – especially from those who claim a paycheck from the SDA Church. Shouldn’t paid employees of the church, at the very least, be held to a higher standard? – a standard of required support of the Church’s most basic fundamental positions?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
15
Adam, Bravus, and Leona and others of good will:
Please feel free to contact me at ervin.taylor@atoday.com so we can discuss what LSU students and others concerned about the real facts can do to respond to the lies and half-truths.
Well-liked:
16 
6
@Adam:
And opposing sight? What a great idea! Nothing would be better than an opposing sight explaining the truth of what is really going on at LSU – especially in the face of statements like LSU Professor Gary Bradley that those who believe in a 6-day creation are the “lunatic fringe” and that he is not going to say that the mainstream evolutionist perspective is a bunch of BS in his classroom at LSU…
All the best with your opposing site. I think it would be most helpful to the overall goal of getting everyone’s cards face-up on the table.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
14
The graphic on this story is particularly unfortunate and unfair, since it suggests by implication that it is Ramona who is the liar, where I believe Shane’s point was that the LSU leadership were the liars. Can that at least be addressed?
Well-liked:
19 
1
I have to continue to appeal. I would be done with this but I must ask one last time that you remove this article. All other arguments aside you cannot honestly say that you do not see how hurtful this will be to Ramona. Using this tactic is absolutely unethical and will do nothing for you. If you must respond to the video could you not simply say that others have had other opinions that you find more valid? Must you have a title like “borders on outright lies” and picture of a young girl with the word lie on her hand. I know that any moment I am going to get a call from a completely devastated Ramona who has been completely disillusioned with Christianity. This will accomplish nothing for you but please realize what it will mean to her! Again where is your Christianity?
Well-liked:
15 
2
Yes exactly! Thank you Bravus!
Well-liked:
13 
2
I’ll second Adam and Bravus that the picture should be changed. The focus of the deception is not on the girl, but the PR department and/or whomever orchestrated this. No one here has suggested that the lady’s testimony is untrue, but the image does imply such a charge.
Erik
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
@Bravus:
Stop the press! I actually agree with Bravus on something! I also think the choice of graphic was unfortunate in this case and should be changed. I also think the title of this post is just a tad too inflammatory. I’ve sent an E-mail to Shane to this effect.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
2
Thank you Mr Pitman…
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
4
@Adam:
I do agree with you on this much. The graphic and title are over the top for the point being made and should be changed.
Also, I do wish you all the best with your new opposing site. I actually think it might help clear the waters to have more exposure to these issues from different perspectives… to create more transparency at the very least.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Well-liked:
18 
2
Mr Pitman,
On your statement:
“I actually think it might help clear the waters to have more exposure to these issues from different perspectives… to create more transparency at the very least.”
I would like to point out that I think that this was the purpose of the La Sierra posting of this video. The problem was that when you looked through the clearer glass, you saw a picture you didn’t like.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
9
@Adam:
I didn’t say I’d like or agree with opposing views. What I said is that I think presenting them will help to create greater transparency – which is one of my primary goals, but not the only one. That is why I hope you do create your opposing site.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
17
Much better. I can’t tell you how critical this was. Thank you again!
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
Thanks Shane, nice work. I’ve appreciated your spirit throughout this process.
Well-liked:
15 
1
@Adam:
No problem. Thanks for the good suggestion…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
@Bravus:
Due to the mysteries of WordPress, it takes a while before the new pic shows on the front page. Thank you for the criticism on the picture. On this point we can agree.
Well-liked:
12 
2
Bravus or Leona have you contacted Taylor? I tried and he didn’t respond. Can we verify that his contact info was correct?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Thank you Mr Pitman! I will get in touch with him.
Enough of this for now… Happy Sabbath!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Discussion of Shane’s ‘article’ has obviously gone on in my absence, but just to reinforce an important point that Adam and others have made, Shane (or whoever else may be monitoring) often choose to simply delete posts they personally may not like.
I posted two comments late last night–they were the second and third posted after Sean’s initial post–and no more than a couple of hours later, they were both gone. Because I have both heard and seen this unfortunate and unnecessary censoring happening all too often, I made copies of the posts just in case they would be deleted.
So, here they are once again; I believe the points, and the language used, while perhaps not brilliant, are much less strident than much of what Sean Pitman and a few others have engaged in throughout the day. Let’s see if this time, Shane, you are willing to let someone who may approach the issue differently than you, actually be heard, and not censored yet again.
(By the way, if you had bothered to take these posts a little more seriously, perhaps you would have realized how inappropriate both the title and the associated picture of your article really were much earlier.)
Deleted Post #1
Very nice, Shane; I’m sure this is exactly what Jesus would say, and how He would handle the situation.
You may have had a legitimate point to make a long time ago, but your continued attempts to publicly smear and outright harm an SDA institution (that, by the way, still enjoys the official support of the SDA church) have sunk to a shrillness and an un-Christ-like tone that is now simply appalling.
Have you no sense of decency, sir?
And by the way, based on the content of your ‘article’, you should really be accusing the student in the video of “out-right lyingâ€, if you wanted your accusations to be logically, let alone factually, correct. And that is itself also appalling.
Again, I ask you Shane, is this honestly how you believe Christ would have you act?
Deleted Post #2
Shane, you have been wallowing in one side of this issue for so long, I sincerely doubt that you even possess the capacity to see any possible good, or legitimacy, in anyone who differs at all with your approach.
When have you ever seen a church institution change direction on a dime, on any issue?
Why can’t you back off for a bit and see if the system can actually work, even if it isn’t on the exact path or time frame that you and your acolytes might wish?
Are you (and your followers) ABSOLUTELY convinced that your way is the ONLY way to resolve the situation?
Do you truly have no faith at all in any of the leaders of the SDA organizations to come to a proper and correct solution?
If so, then why bother with attempted prayer vigils in front of LSU? You could only be demanding, er, asking that God solve the situation by following YOUR plan of action, since YOU KNOW you already have all the truth, as well as the ONLY solution to the issue.
And that, my friend, sounds like a very arrogant, haughty, and dangerous approach; hence my earlier post.
Why don’t you and your followers, whom I believe do have a legitimate issue, show a little more faith in God, and church leaders, of whom some may actually be looking out for the best interests of God’s truth and the institutions of the church?
Why not step back for awhile, pray for the parties actually responsible for making the decisions in this matter, and simply ask God to lead them as they work towards a proper solution to the matter?
(I would end my post here, but I can already strongly sense your response: you already KNOW what the correct solution is, so there is no need for these parties to debate or delay any longer, right? Hence my ‘arrogant, haughty, and dangerous’ reference above. Insisting there is only one way to solve the issue, and making yourself the judge of what steps are acceptable, puts you and your followers on VERY thin, and dangerous, ice. That’s certainly not where I would want God to find me . . . .)
Well-liked:
32 
22
@Adam:
You’re welcome… and Happy Sabbath ; )
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
As a follow-up, Shane, I will give you credit for not censoring Adam on this thread (apparently, that is; although how could one know for sure, given past history?).
It was also more than a little interesting to note as I caught up reading every post on this thread, that Adam and those supporting his approach were consistently ranked very favorably by other readers, while for many of Sean’s posts, I had to double-click just to see them, as they were hidden because so many had ranked them so poorly.
Does that mean anything to you, Shane (and Sean), or does it simply encourage you to redouble your energies to harm an SDA institution that, in spite of your efforts, continues in good standing with the church, in order to try and achieve your ends, no matter the cost to others?
One final point, and this is a strategic one: do you honestly think that, by continuing to stoke the fires of disharmony with unceasing stridency, you are really increasing the odds that La Sierra will be open to further modification and change?
An elemental understanding of human nature should lead you to quickly realize that people are generally more open to other viewpoints, let alone to actual change, when they are not getting constantly harangued and pilloried by those who disagree with them.
Perhaps showing a more Christ-like and humble approach to those responsible for decision-making at La Sierra would be much more productive to actually achieving your goals . . . just a thought.
Well-liked:
34 
19
@Jim:
Low comment rankings for Shane and I mean that a bunch of people opposed to the stated SDA position on origins, like you, seem to be reviewing this website… which is good! Comment rankings really don’t mean anything to me outside of how many people have read and been stirred up enough by what was said to press the ranking button. I’ve been posting on Talk.Origins for many years now and am very used to getting the lowest rankings possible for just about everything I contribute. I would expect nothing less. In fact, I’d get a bit worried if I started to become popular on Talk.Origins – or with those who hold opinions similar to yours (nothing personal you understand)…
As far as LSU being an SDA institution, we’re trying to keep it that way – an institution that actually supports, in an active manner, the stated SDA fundamental positions in all of its classrooms. Currently, this is not the case at LSU.
This issue, the promotion of the theory of evolution as the gospel truth, has been going on for decades at LSU. I myself have tried many different ways to have this issue substantively addressed for almost 10 years at LSU – without any real success. Unfortunately, it seems like the LSU leadership wasn’t willing to do anything at all to address the situation before it was brought public. Only after a general uproar from the SDA community was generated has LSU taken this issue seriously, but still has yet to solve the original problem.
As far as being humble and Christlike, Jesus himself told his followers to stand for the truth though the heavens fall, and not be afraid to face opposition for standing firm for what one honestly believes is right and very important. Is it possible to stand for something and be humble at the same time? Certainly. Being humble before God doesn’t mean a follower of Christ cannot have firm opinions on various topics. Many of the humblest men mentioned in the Bible were accused of being arrogant at one time or another – like Moses. Even Jesus himself was accused of being arrogant you know.
The fact of the matter is, it takes just a little chutzpah to stand for something against decided opposition and those who call suggest you lack humbleness and don’t have a Christ-like attitude for doing so…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
29 
28
Thanks for your reply, Sean. I guess, though, one rather important matter apparently still needs to be pointed out even more explicitly to you: in BOTH of my deleted posts, I actually, truly, really did say that Shane, et al., had originally raised a legitimate issue and point. That means, Sean, I just may AGREE with his/your original concern!!!
Yet somehow you’ve divined that I am OPPOSED to the stated SDA position on origins. Yikes! Maybe calm down occasionally, and perhaps stop attacking those who are actually trying to make constructive observations, and possibly even move the issue forward in a positive way.
Or not, and keep beating your one-note drum, attacking, attacking, attacking, not really open to any viewpoint or approach other than your own, and continuing to drive away those who may in fact have supported your original contention.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
19
@Jim:
So, there are people who are opposed either to the SDA position on origins or to our methods or desire to have this SDA position promoted in our own SDA schools in all classrooms. Lot of people are opposed to us… in one form or another. However, there are also a great many who share our opinion within the grass roots of the SDA Church as well.
We aren’t in this to please everyone. We know that what we are doing is going to rub a lot of people the wrong way. Yet, we see no other alternative. If we knew of a better way, we’d do it. We’ve tried many other methods. None of the other methods worked to obtain the desired result.
Now, I do commend your sincerity of heart and purpose, but we cannot agree with your position or your suggestions on how to act in this case…
Sincerely,
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
25
Sean said: “It isn’t that LSU is exposing students to the opinions and beliefs of mainstream scientists, but that LSU professors are telling their students that the mainstream scientific perspective is the truth – the most obvious scientific interpretation of the available data. That is what is disturbing about the LSU science curriculum… it is fundamentally opposed to the fundamental positions of the SDA Church as an organization.”
Perhaps a new website should be created called “PrescriptionTruth” that reveals that LLU is teaching physicians to use drugs in direct contradiction to the clear warnings of Sister White. She wrote many times about the dangers of drugs and that they should be avoided (in addition to warnings that male doctors should not examine females (and vice versa), that our physicians should not charge as much as worldly physicians, and so on). Thus many devout SDAs believe that the teachings of LLU are fundamentally opposed to the teachings of EGW and a petition should be started to get LLU to change its teachings. Or is there nothing “theoretical” about the evidence that drugs can save lives? Do we take that mainstream evidence as the truth?
Roger
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
16
@Roger:
You do realize, of course, that you are taking Mrs. White out of context here – right? Do you not understand that in her day doctors were prescribing poisons and other harmful treatments, like arsenic, blood letting, metallic mercury, tobacco, coffee enemas, opium, cocaine, and other narcotics, numerous other poisons and harmful medical practices(which were prescribed for many mundane ailments and which caused no end of addictions and suffering). I’m sorry but you are most ill-informed. It is quite clear that Mrs. White was far ahead of her time in her advice on health and medical care.
Even in the modern age, most drugs should be used sparingly outside of situation where acute stabilization requires their use or in very specific chronic conditions. Most diseases or chronic ailments would be best treated and even cured by natural means of proper diet, exercise, fresh air, and the avoidance of harmful substances like alcohol, tobacco and the like – - just as Mrs. White suggested. Most patients require drugs today, not because there is no better option, but because they will not give up on their harmful lifestyles and habits.
Come on now. If you wish quote or invoke someone, it is best to do it in context – - wouldn’t you agree?
Also, I fail to see how your arguments, even if they were true, counter the point that it is wrong for employees to expect a paycheck from an employer whose clearly stated position and goals they are actively undermining. It doesn’t matter if the employer is right or wrong. The employer still has a right to expect an employee to actually do what the employer is paying the employee to do. Subversion of the employer, on the employer’s time, is simply dishonest on the part of the employee. Can you really argue with any sincerity that such action, on the part of the employee, is anything other than theft of the employer’s time and money?
So, if you, or anyone else, really think the SDA Church is “just plain nuts”, as an organization, then don’t think to become an official paid representative of this organization. Go work for and get paid by an employer who is more “rational”. At least you would be working honestly for your keep… honestly doing what your employer is actually paying you to do…
Sean Pitman, M.D.
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
23
Jim says, “Shane, you have been wallowing in one side of this issue for so long, I sincerely doubt that you even possess the capacity to see any possible good, or legitimacy, in anyone who differs at all with your approach.”
I would be interested to see more clearly what Jim means. Namely, what is “this issue”, the “one side” in which Shane allegedly is “wallowing” and for how long exactly Shane allegedly has “wallowed?”
That is, 1. this issue 2. Shane’s side 3. time Shane has spent wallowing.
Does Jim leave Shane’s actions for the church to work out? Does comparing Shane to the likes of a pig and people who agree with him as Shane’s followers measure up?
Where is either apology or redrawing of, “Why can’t you back off for a bit and see if the system can actually work” self-refuting ideology?
Peace,
Rich
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
21
Thank you, Dr. Pitman, for the context on those statements by Mrs. White. So, the things she said about medicine in that setting have not been treated as divine revelation on a par with scripture; instead, as I understand your explanation, Adventists recognize the progress that has been made in medicine since that time, accept the evidence that it can be beneficial when used appropriately, and understand the limited scope within which Mrs. White’s statements were valid. Regarding this other part:
Your position certainly applies when the employer is an ad agency or an organization for political advocacy, where the notion of “right or wrong” is a matter of personal taste. But when the employer is an institution of higher education, and the employee is an educator, there is a strong case to be made for the existence of broader obligations (one could say “higher authorities”) that govern them both.
One set of obligations is to the students: honesty, respect, a sincere concern for the students’ best interests, and an effective curriculum to prepare them for the paths they will take. Another set is to the society at large: the credentials granted to students who graduate should meet standards that establish some consistent level of competence and ability in a given field — this is a valid concern regardless of whether the institution depends on public funds for its operation.
When the employee is at odds with both the employer’s purpose and these other obligations, clearly the employee must find some other line of work. But what if the employee has the skill and intention to meet these obligations, and it is only the employer’s policy that stands in the way? Many would consider it sufficient that the instructor leave for another job, but there are some who view such a choice as shirking responsibility, because such a policy at a college or university is a wrong that should not stand unopposed and uncorrected.
I’m not at all familiar with the Seventh Day Adventist universities. If they do not grant degrees in biology, geology or astronomy, then my point about obligations to the society at large is moot for this discussion. I apologize if my intrusion has caused any offense, as this was certainly not my intention.
Respectfully,
David Graff
Well-liked:
25 
10
From Sean: “You do realize, of course, that you are taking Mrs. White out of context here – right? [...] I’m sorry but you are most ill-informed.”
and
“So, if you, or anyone else, really think the SDA Church is “just plain nutsâ€, as an organization, then don’t think to become an official paid representative of this organization. Go work for and get paid by an employer who is more “rationalâ€.”
–
Sean, it seems that the notion of a website that might use quotes from EGW to attack a university or professors associated with that university has struck a nerve with you. See any irony here?
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
14
@Roger:
Try doing it in context next time and see what happens… try being honest with the available information. Also, try being honest toward your employer and respectful of your employers ideals and wishes – as long as you take on the status of employee.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
19
@David Graff:
In this country, one is free, as an employer to hire whomever one wants to do whatever one wants them to do – as long as it does not violate civil law.
Let’s say an employer wants to get into education and hire someone to teach a certain view on biology that goes against everything that mainstream science has to say about it. The employer’s notion may be completely nuts, but as long as the level of nuttiness does not cross the line over into a civil crime, it is perfectly ok in this country to pay someone to teach nutty things to anyone who wants to pay to hear nutty things.
Of course, the employee is also free to not take on employment if the employee feels that the employer is asking him/her to teach nutty things. However, if the employee agrees to the terms of employment set out by the nutty employer, the employee is then morally obligated to fulfill the nutty wishes of the employer. Otherwise, the employee is steeling the employers money by doing other than he/she is being paid to do.
Taking money from even a nutty person while doing other than the nutty person paid you to do is still stealing. You are not released from the moral wrong of stealing just because you stole money from a nut case.
Of course, the government of this country is also free to not recognize nutty schools as being officially sanctioned to teach biology and can therefore withhold accreditation from this employer.
But, of course, in this country anyway, accreditation isn’t based on belief, or information presented in support of various beliefs, but on the presentation of at least a certain set of information – but is not limited to that set of information. Additional information can also be presented without a loss of accreditation.
While these are certainly valid concerns, there are very different opinions out there on how best to meet these concerns. And, in this free country of ours, different employers with very different views on this issue are free to hire those who most effectively represent their own views. The determination of “competence and ability in a given field” is subjective to a certain extent. It all depends upon if someone is willing to pay you for your services once you are “competent” – short of breaking civil law of course.
There is no point for the SDA Church to have a Church-owned and operated school of any kind if teachers in that school are telling their students that the Church’s most basic ideals are ludicrously mistaken. If the teachers hired by the Church to present the Church’s ideals to the students cannot do this in good conscience, then these teachers should go elsewhere. If they wish to work against the Church’s position, that’s fine, but not on the Church’s dime. Working against the Church, or any other organization for that matter, is perfectly fine, but not while taking money from the very organization you wish to undermine.
SDA universities do indeed grant degrees in biology, geology, and astronomy. The government is free to recognize or not recognize these degrees as valid. The SDA Church is also free to teach whatever it wants to anyone who is willing to listen regardless of government recognition. The SDA Church is also free to hire whomever it wants. However, given that the position of the Church is made very clear, and that the expected duties of the employees is made very clear, it is morally wrong for an employee to knowingly subvert what he/she is being paid to do while on the dime of the SDA Church. It is fine to be subversive, but do it on your own time and dime – not your employers.
Stealing time and money from your employer is exactly that; robbery of your employer’s time and money – even if you think your employer is nuts.
As long as what the employer is asking you to do is legal within civil law, you should either do it while accepting money from your employer, or resign and go elsewhere.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
20
One more thing, if you do decide to counter your employer’s clearly stated wishes, on the employer’s dime, at least be open about what you are doing. Don’t try to hide it and pretend like you are actually doing what your employer told you to do when you aren’t doing that at all. Otherwise, you’re simply being doubly dishonest – i.e., you’re not doing what your employer specifically asked you to do on the employer’s dime, and your pretending like you are.
This is exactly what LSU is doing. The employer, the SDA Church in this case, has specifically advised all SDA employees to teach and support the stated fundamental SDA doctrines from pulpits and classrooms. Many teachers at LSU are directly undermining certain SDA beliefs – especially when it comes to the issue of origins. These teachers are telling their students, in no uncertain terms, that the SDA position on a literal creation week is simply ludicrous; that the modern evolutionary story of origins is the actual truth – - all while expecting to be paid by the organized SDA Church?! If this isn’t bad enough, LSU is advertising itself as being in full support of the fundamental SDA position on origins – in all of its classrooms.
In my opinion, this is a form of double dishonesty toward the SDA Church, as an organization. At the very least it is clearly less than forthright and transparent. Do not future students and parents, and even the SDA Church membership at large, have a right to know what all professors at an SDA school are actually teaching their sons and daughters?
Why then isn’t LSU being open and completely transparent about the expressed opinions of all of its hired professors? – professors who are hired and paid by my own tithes and offerings which have been given to support the stated fundamental positions of the SDA Church?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
20
Sean, I wonder because of the tone of your reply and your exhortation to be honest towards my employer that you think I am from LSU. Sorry, but that is not correct. I do not work for the SDA church in any capacity.
And you keep saying I am taking EGW out of context, but I never gave a specific context. Read my post – I just said that she wrote many times about the dangers of drugs (go to the White Estate online and search for drugs; you will get pages of EGW quotes about the dangers of drugs). Many devout SDAs who read those statements believe that the teachings of LLU are fundamentally opposed to the teachings of EGW; I myself have been chided by certain conservative Adventists for doing the devil’s work for prescribing drugs. Thus I am certain my statement is absolutely correct. You complain that LSU professors are telling their students that the mainstream scientific perspective is the most obvious scientific interpretation of the available data. So if a website attacking LLU for teaching physicians to use drugs went online, how would you defend your use of drugs? Perhaps you would argue that there is nothing “theoretical†about the evidence that drugs can save lives? Do you take that mainstream evidence as the truth?
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
14
@Roger:
I’m writing to everyone who is an employee of the SDA Church. I’m not writing just to you – though you also should support the idea of honesty and transparency toward one’s employer (even if you yourself are not an employee of the SDA Church). This should be a self-evident idea and have the support of all. I find the mental gymnastics used in an effort to get around this idea quite amazing…
Yes, so have I. Like you, even some conservative SDA’s do not read or quote Mrs. White in context. Big surprise. However, the stand of Mrs. White on the 6-day creation week is not being taken out of context – and neither is the stand of the organized SDA Church. The SDA Church has a very clear stand on a literal 6-day creation week.
If I honestly thought that this stand was mistaken, that it went directly against clear scientific evidence, I’d be honest enough to leave the Church and work against this error from without, not within, the Church. I certainly wouldn’t take money from the Church, as a paid representative, to teach contrary to the Church’s fundamental stand on this issue – regardless of what I thought the scientific evidence supports.
That’s right. That’s because the SDA Church has specifically asked all employees, to include its science professors, to actively support the stated SDA position on origins. It has also asked, at the highest level of Church government, that those professors who cannot do this resign their position and go elsewhere. Therefore, regardless of what an individual professor thinks about the scientific evidence, he/she is not doing right by his/her employer, the SDA Church, to continue to oppose the Church on the Church’s dime.
It’s fine and good and all to oppose the Church for various fundamental errors and all – but not on the Church’s dime in public forums like pulpits and classrooms. How is this not self-evidently obvious?
I’d defend my use of “drugs” in particular medically-indicated circumstances by appealing to the fact that the SDA Church has taken no stand against the use of drugs in this manner nor did Mrs. White – if she is read in context. Therefore, I’m not working against any fundamental position of the organization which I claim to represent.
Do you understand the difference here? The SDA Church has taken on a very specific fundamental stand regarding the literal creation week. It has not done so regarding the modern medical use of drugs. Big difference.
Beyond this, if the SDA Church did take a stand against something I personally believe to be true, I’d leave the SDA Church. At an even higher level of morality, I’d certainly never think to take money from any organization with which I had a fundamental disagreement… speaking my mind on this issue on the employer’s dime… never. I’m not a saint yet by any means, but for me this is a clear moral wrong.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
19
Roger,
Sean is correct regarding Mrs. White’s use of the word “drugs.” If you choose to apply the term as broadly as we do today, you are taking it out of context. It is true that even in her day the word could have been more broadly applied than she used it, but her meaning is clear when one looks at the fairly long list of things she specifically calls “drugs.” There are other things which she referred to by milder-sounding words such as “medicines” and “remedies” which may be more fitting of some of our modern “drugs.” So, what did she call “drugs”? Opium, tobacco, alcohol, wine, beer, liquor, whiskey, heroin, strychnine, quinine, arsenic and calomel (which was mostly mercury)–these were “drugs.” A glance at this list shows them all to be narcotics, addictive, or just plain poison. None of these were helpful to the body in any way. Nor are these “drugs” in quite the same category as the broad definition of “drugs” today, albeit some of what we use today would fit the definition.
To make the comparison to LSU’s teaching of evolution, one would have to phrase it as something akin to “there’s nothing ‘theoretical’ about the evidence of mercury (or tobacco, etc.) saving lives.” And of course, we know that statement is simply untrue–just as untrue as the “nothing theoretical” statement regarding evolution.
Erik
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
18
Really, it all boils down to one simple question:
Isn’t it Ok to steal from crazy people?
Stealing is stealing my friends. Even if your stealing from someone who is clearly nuts, it’s still stealing of the time and money of your nutty employer to counter your employer on the employer’s dime – and is therefore a clear moral wrong.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
22
I’m actually fairly sure that the professors at LSU were doing exactly what their direct employer, the university, asked and wanted them to do – teaching the science, teaching the controversy, building students’ faith in God. It’s pretty clear from all the actual course notes, curriculum and other documents that have emerged that the approach was balanced. So your ‘stealing’ analogy does not apply at that level of professors-to-university.
You’ve also used it at the university-to-broader-denomination level, and it’s possible there is a case there: if the assumption is that what the broader denomination wants, and has requested of its educational institutions, is the exclusive teaching of recent creationism, which evolution not even mentioned except to disparage and criticize it. I’m not convinced that that is the case.
You need to move beyond your own assumptions and rhetoric on this issue, Sean. Who is stealing from whom, if what is being taught is exactly what should be taught?
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
15
@Bravus:
First off, the LSU science professors are not “teaching the controversy” – as you put it. They are teaching the ToE as fact without providing any basis whatsoever to present 6-day creation in any light other than an obviously ludicrous outdated notion of extreme SDA fundamentalists who have no rational basis for this belief that goes beyond desperately blind faith.
Beyond this, the administrators of LSU are also employees of the SDA Church. They are therefore not morally free to act independently of the clearly stated wishes of the SDA Church organization – an organization which has clearly stated its desires for what its paid representatives should be promoting from classroom and pulpit.
This is why Pres. Wisbey and the LSU board are just as culpable as the science professors at LSU – if not more so…
What the SDA Church organization has stated is that teachers need to support the stated SDA understanding of origins – even in science classrooms – to include a promotion of a literal 6-day creation week. This isn’t to say that students shouldn’t be very well informed on the theory of evolution, but that SDA educators need to go beyond this level to actively promote the 6-day creation week as the best explanation of the origin of life on this planet.
To illustrate this point, please refer to the official statement of the organized SDA Church in this regard:
This is the stated position of the SDA Church, in very clear language. And, I happen to support this statement – and put my money where my mouth is. LSU does not, evidently, share this sentiment and is not supporting the stated position of their employer.
Also refer to a statement of Jan Paulsen, President of the SDA Church:
So, it seems quite clear what the SDA Church’s position is on a literal creation week and on what it expects its paid representatives to teach in this regard. I really don’t think there’s much of an argument here for anyone with an honest approach to this issue.
What should be taught by an employee is what the employer is paying that employee to teach while on the employer’s dime. If the employee wants to teach something else, then that person should go elsewhere and work for someone who is actually willing to pay that person to teach what they want to teach… or work independently…
It’s a very simple and obvious concept. It should be self-evident to anyone with a candid mind.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
20
Sean, I don’t frequent this site quite as much as you do (mild understatement!), but I did just read this reply you made to me a couple of days ago:
I’m pretty sure that when you and Shane originally set up this web site, you must have spelled out a philosophical approach, or rationale, why you believed this site was the best, if not only, tool to create the changes you desired at La Sierra.
Further, I’m pretty sure as part of that rationale you must have detailed the previous efforts you had unsuccessfully made (as referenced above in your quote) to promote those changes.
But, as most of the threads on this site have been closed, I am unable to find a list of those specific efforts. So, would you please briefly but specifically detail again “the many different ways” you have “tried to have this issue substantively addressed for almost 10 years at LSU?”
I, and perhaps others, would be fascinated to better understand why you remain adamant that your approach is the only option that you see as possible to create those changes you so desire at LSU.
Perhaps when you at least briefly but specifically detail the many different ways you have tried to bring about change at La Sierra, some of us might be more open to actively support your approach. But as of now, none of us has walked in your shoes, or suffered your apparent frustrations, and I at least continue to puzzle at why you are so convinced that your strategy is the best, and perhaps only way to create, or force, change at La Sierra.
Thanks in advance for your reply.
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
8
@Jim:
Back when Lawrence Geraty was President of LSU, I wrote him several private letters. I also wrote the LSU board and the PUC, Union, and GC Presidents several private letters over the years as well. The usual response I received was something like, “We appreciate your concern, but remember, Mrs. White says that the Church will go through to the end of time.”
Then, in 2005, I was asked by a group of LSU students, to include the student body president at the time, Jason Shives, to speak at Cossentine Hall about creation vs. evolution – “In order to give some balance to what we are being taught in our science classes.” The students rented out the Hall themselves because LSU would not sponsor the event and none of the LSU science professors would allow any creationist to speak in their classrooms to their students. In any case, the day came and the hall was filled, standing room only, with both students and a number of professors. Geraty himself was there.
During the Q&A period a teacher asked a question as to why teacher’s shouldn’t have complete academic freedom to teach as they saw fit? I responded by asking why an employee of Nike should be paid for promoting Reebok on Nike’s dime? … and the place erupted. Either people where clapping and hooting or shaking their heads and booing, but it seemed like everyone was making a lot of noise.
Afterward around 100 students signed a petition to have the topic of a literal 6-day creation presented in all science classes. At that time, not even the discussion of a literal creation week was allowed by certain professors in their classes. Several students came up to me after and told me that they couldn’t even speak up in class in favor of SDA-style creationism because those students who had done so before had received poor letters of recommendation which had hindered their educational careers. It’s hard to imagine that this was happening at an SDA institution, but it was…
After that, and a few more private letters, I received a personal phone call from the Union President telling me that he had personally talked to Geraty and that Geraty had assured him that all the teachers at LSU were creationists. This is the same thing that Geraty had said during my first lecture at LSU. Of course, as we all know, this assertion is only true in the theistic sense of the word, not the stated SDA sense of a literal creation week.
Needless to say, nothing happened with regard to the promotion of SDA ideals in the science classrooms at LSU. Theistic evolutionist professors were retained by LSU, since Geraty specifically hired some of them, having worked with them before. They were allowed and even encouraged to continue teaching as they had been – i.e., in full support of the modern evolutionary synthesis view of origins without even the slightest promotion of a literal 6-day creation week in their classrooms. If this creationist perspective was ever mentioned, it was only to explain how silly it was in light of the massive weight of evidence favoring the mainstream perspective.
A few more years of fruitless letters and the efforts of individual students at LSU went by. Then, last February, Louie Bishop contacted me and asked me if I wouldn’t be able to speak that very next Friday at LSU. He said that he had been told that I might be willing to give a presentation on the evidence for a literal creation week. So, without much prep or advertisement, I showed up and gave a talk that Friday afternoon. Perhaps 100 or so came at first, but many had to leave before the talk was over – either because of prior engagements or because of a lack of interest. Perhaps 20 or so stayed for the Q&A after.
Because of the poor turnout on a Friday afternoon, Ervin Taylor, an agnostic evolutionist and executive editor of the “progressive” journal “AdventistToday“, wrote an article entitled, “Fundamentalist Creationist gets Lukewarm Student Reception at La Sierra University”.
http://www.atoday.com/fundamentalist-creationist-gets-lukewarm-student-reception-la-sierra-university
After this I decided to write public letters to the powers that be within the Church. One of the responses to one of my letters sparked the interest of David Asscherick, who wrote a letter of his own to several presidents at various levels.
http://www.educatetruth.com/articles/letters/david-asscherick-email-to-the-general-conference/
This letter was originally intended to be private, but was reviewed for editing purposes by a few people, and somehow got out on an E-mail list. At this point, it went like wildfire around the world. In a matter of one or two days I was getting dozens of E-mails from all over the place and David was getting hundreds and thousands of letters and E-mails.
And, it kinda snowballed from there… to include the initiation of this website by some talented young person whom I still do not personally know and have never met. Shane Hilde then took over this website. I’m only involved with it in a sense of a sort of consultant. After all, I do have my own website to maintain…
And, that’s the story in a nutshell…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
10
This banter of big words and intellect is laughable. As the bible states there is only One TRUTH, ONE WAY, ONE FAITH. So yes, those who believe in this theory are WRONG. As a recent graduate of LSU – that is Louisiana State University and sitting through MANY nauseating “science” classes from Biology, Chemistry, Geology to even Astronomy I can assure you that professors all across the country in every university, non Adventist and Secular alike, promote and teach this Satanic “theory” as factual. It’s expected in Public institutions but not from a “Christian” university in which the principles and teachings of Christ are supposed to be upheld. This is a religious belief to these professors. They will no less begin to foam at the mouth (which I have witnessed twice myself) as soon as you begin to question the “evidence” they so exuberantly proclaim as the “facts”. Call me one of those “fringe lunatics” but evolution is never really given a fair shake in any classes. If it were, people would readily see the many holes in this “only possible solution”. The bottom line is – the teaching of this theory as fact plants Doubt in the minds of students and from doubt comes Disbelief in the word of God and from their disbelief come Disobedience… and that is what Satan wants. Disobey God and question His word, just as Satan did. There is a battle for the minds of all humans and Lucifer has devised one of the most shrill and cunning ways to lure young and old out of Gods kingdom. If you don’t believe in God then there can’t be a devil and those who follow this theory don’t even realize whose deceptive power they are under. May the truth shine forth and the battle for hearts continue until Christ’s soon return. God bless those who continue to expose the hidden darkness lurking in our classrooms.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
7
Shane and Sean, don’t back down as some of those who have written here would like you to do. It’s an absolute shame that profs, who don’t believe in a six day creation, are allowed to teach at LSU.
Those employees who do not subscribe to SDA doctrines, whether about creation or any other field, should resign or be given their walking papers.Personal honesty should dictate that as a course of action.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
9
In my opinion, dealing with the problem of treating the theory of evolution as fact in our schools by trying to get the university to change to a creationist point of view is like pulling leaves off of a tree. There is a deeper root here than merely a few unbelieving professors…
The purpose for our original founding of our institutions of higher education was for the purpose of educating young men and women to spread the Adventist understanding of the gospel; hence the names; The College of Medical Evangelists, Southern Missionary College, Emmanuel Missionary College, etc. This original purpose has changed and was later acknowledged by a change in name to more “accepted†ones; Loma Linda University, Southern University and Andrews University. Although our colleges and universities do still send out missionaries, that is not their primary purpose but rather for their graduates to get jobs, to get ahead, to get higher pay and a greater standing and position in the world. Now, don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with a job, higher pay, and standing and position in the world. Consider Joseph and Daniel for instance, but what is wrong is where this is our schools and attendees main purpose for existence. When these purposes are our schools and attendees main reason for existence rather than mission, despite any professions to the contrary, then one will compromise mission, beliefs, doctrines, etc in order to fulfill that actual purpose rather than their professed one. When it comes to nip and tuck, one will compromise mission to get ahead in the world and that is exactly what is happening in the Science departments at LSU and other of our schools. And this is not just in the Science departments but many, many other facets to a more or less degree as well.
And all of this makes logical sense. To compromise what which you perceive will get you ahead in the world for something that you don’t deeply believe is illogical. Only those who still possess to some degree the original concept for our school’s existence will be in favor of or passionate about teaching Creationism when it gives no job or status benefit outside of Adventist or maybe Christian circles, but instead may hinder their further career in secular society. If it wasn’t for a few teachers and administrators that still have the Adventist vision and are willing to sacrifice for it, our schools would be much worse condition today.
As long as our school’s main and real purpose is to get ahead, to get a job, to achieve status, and the Church’s mission is only something to give token effort to and then only and merely in a humanitarian way rather than through an Adventist understanding of the gospel, I fear that any victories that are obtained through this debate within Adventism will be shallow and transitory. That said, I do not feel that the field should be given up to the forces of darkness. No. Fight we shall. Evil should not be given a free hand. It must be resisted.
(Note: There is nothing wrong with humanitarianism as long as it is a means to the gospel end and not an end in itself. It is the Medical MISSIONARY work and not just the medical work that the church should be doing. To be doing mere medical work is to put a bandaid on the world’s problems IN PLACE OF a giving it the true cure.)
Well-liked:
16 
2
Sean
You stated that Ervin Taylor is an Agnostic Evolutionist. While there appears to be no lack of evidence supporting the position that Erv supports some form of deep time evolution, to argue that Erv is an agnostic is a statement I have difficulty in agreeing with, and I would like to know what your evidence is. The following statement by Erv would also suggest that he describes himself as a creationist, in that he is a part of the dialogue.
“Because of this we are assuming that all of those involved in this dialogue are “creationists” in the sense that they have adopted the view that the deity represented in most parts of the Judeo-Christian tradition is ultimately responsible in some sense for the original existence of natural world.”
I suggest you check out more closely what Erv’s position is. His material can be found at:
http://www.atoday.com/content/evolution-and-adventist-dilemma-part-i
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
I recently graduated from LSU with a biomedical degree and am currently in medical school. So I thought I’d contribute my views to this discussion. I don’t think that religious views belong in the science classroom, that is what religion classes are for. To teach real science you have to remove your belief system and accept the evidence for what it is. Our science classes were designed to make us competent contributors in the field of science by teaching us mainstream science.
As a scientist you cannot argue with evidence, when Dr. Bradley presents a lecture to you about hominin evolution, how do you take that? You can’t reject it, because it is scientific quantifiable data that has been peer-reviewed by the scientific community. And to be a competent scientist, you have to know the material. You have to understand that the terms ‘belief’ and ‘science’ do not go hand in hand, science is not about beliefs it is about facts. As an SDA biology student, it is your duty to take this information and try to make sense of it by seeing how you can incorporate it within your belief system. That is the struggle that some students have. I am quite thankful to the LSU biology department because they made me question my faith and make it my own instead of me just clinging on to the faith of my parents.
Regardless of whether or not our teachers believe in a literal 7 day creation week or not, they still teach us real science, if you are asking them to stop teaching us real science then you are asking for an inadequate education. I don’t think that they should lose their jobs because of that. After all, the Adventist Healthcare System doesn’t solely hire Adventist physicians, nurses, and techs. Should all these non-SDA healthcare providers be stripped of their jobs too because they work for the SDA church but do not uphold the belief system of the church?
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
13
@Billman:
It is my understanding that an agnostic is someone who doesn’t know of any clear evidence of God’s existence, but still cannot rule out that God could exist. It is in this sense that Erv Taylor is, for all practical purposes, agnostic in his thinking – at far as I’ve been able to tell anyway.
For example, when asked as part of a public panel discussion at Loma Linda University Church what he would tell is own granddaughter if she asked him for evidence of God’s existence, Erv said, “I don’t know”.
Just ask him this question yourself. If your experience is anything like mine over the past several years, Erv won’t answer this question for you. And, if he does, please do let me know what he says…
Evidently, he simply doesn’t know of any good evidence for God’s existence which he considers worth mentioning. Sure, he pays lip service to the idea that God could exist (as in the article you cite above), but he knows of no good evidence to back up this idea and has admitted as much himself.
While Erv is admirably honest to admit this in public, it still seems rather sad to me that anyone who would think to carry the title of Christian, much less SDA, would know of no evidences worth mentioning for God’s very existence…
But, ultimately, this is the final most logical conclusion given the evolutionary paradigm. If everything can ultimately come from nothing, or at least from lesser to greater and greater levels of functional informational complexity, without the need for intelligent input of any kind, where is the evident need for God or any sort of intelligent creative power of any kind? – beyond blind faith that is? a blind faith that is not any different from believing in Dawkins’ famous Flying Spaghetti Monster? – or a child’s belief in Santa Claus?
Erv Taylor, like Dawkins and others like him, are in a real spot here. If they admit to evidence which requires or necessitates the existence of God or at least a God-like creative power, that very same argument can be used against the basis of many of their other “scientific” beliefs… and they know it.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
4
It is interesting to note that many here have said that things should be changed (by the moderators) to follow what ‘Christ’ would do.
As I recall, when the leadership of the church (via the money-changers) was engaged in trade in the temple, he got out a whip and chased them out.
As I also recall, Christ said He didn’t come to bring peace (on this earth), but a sword. From what I can tell, He wasn’t a pacifist in this context.
Certainly, the statement by Christ about bringing a sword requires context, however, there are times when standing up for right (even though it flies in the face of the greatest opposition) is the right thing to do, and even if it bring about apparent discord.
I also note that when Peter was telling Christ that He wasn’t going to fall under the agonies and death of the cross (when Christ had just said a moment before that He would), that Jesus told Peter to get behind him, and named him Satan because his words were from the influence of Satan.
I wonder if the words of persons above (telling Shane and Sean that they need to follow Christ, and do what He would do) are merely reflections of the words of Satan.
I fully believe that if Christ were here, He would come out so much stronger and more forcefully against the actions of this institution than anyone has done on this site. I believe He would tell all parents to keep their kids away from this institution, because to send them there is to submit them to infidelity and skepticism at a time in their lives when they should rather be seeking a stronger relationship with God.
So to those urging silence from Shane and Sean, please be cautious else the words of Christ may apply equally to you as they did to Peter in Matthew 16:23: “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
7
@Frank:
Science is about interpreting the facts and coming to conclusions as to what you believe the facts are most likely telling you. Facts, without interpretation, are worthless. Science is a method of interpreting facts. Science itself isn’t actually “about facts”, but the interpretation of facts – big difference.
Science is also limited in that it cannot prove anything in an absolute sense. That is why the conclusions of science are never conclusive, but carry varying degrees of useful, but limited, predictive value. Science is also subjective in the sense that it depends upon past experience in order to be able to better predict the future. Since different people or groups of people have different past experiences and mental capabilities, different people and even groups of people will be more or less reliable predictors of the future.
The very same thing is true of useful religion – i.e., religion that is actually based on something more than blind faith or emotion. Useful religion is also based on testable potentially falsifiable data. Christianity, in particular, claims to be evidence-based.
I wonder if your parents feel the same way about how their money was spent on your “SDA” education? I personally know many parents who were shocked to learn, often too late to do anything about it, what their children where actually being taught – - at what they thought was an SDA institution which supports and promotes SDA ideals…
You are under what I consider to be the misguided notion that real science can only be the mainstream interpretation of the available data/facts. That notion is simply mistaken. I propose to you that your professors aren’t teaching you the best available science when it comes to a lot of issues, but only their particular perspective or beliefs as to what the true interpretation of the available data must be… a perspective which is simply mistaken and clearly untenable given the weight of all the available information.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Well-liked:
16 
5
I think McCloskey’s 2009 Biology 112 syllabus said it best: “If you expect to be competitive in any modern science-based profession, and hope to perform well on standardized or pre-professional qualifying exams, you must simply know what the scientific evidence is, whether or not you ‘believe’ it”.
All of these people like Frank who lean on the crutch of “it is scientific quantifiable data that has been peer-reviewed by the scientific community” need to do some basic 101 research on how these “peer reviewed” journals work. Let me break it down for you. When an article is submitted to a peer reviewed journal, the editors (whom the vast majority are openly secular humanist) send it out to other ‘scholars’ in the same field to get their opinion on the quality of the scholarship, its relevance to the field, its appropriateness for the journal, etc. Now lets put these puzzle pieces together…Secular humanist journal editor sends new research to other secular humanist in related field. They conclude that the new evidence is not worthy to be published because it is “unscientific” when in reality it just because it challenges the “evidence” of their current dogmatic religious views they preach in classrooms under the guise of “science”. And that my friends, is why you have little peer reviewed and published evidence that challenges Evolution. It’s Not because there isn’t any but because the Serpent is smart people! He’s got a Lock Pad on these ‘science’ journals and on these ‘science’ departments.Come on you really think a message created and devised my Satan himself would leave a back door open like that?
If you don’t toe the “scientific community” line you don’t get published, you don’t move up in the professor ranks and you don’t reach tenure. Just as Frank said “I am quite thankful to the LSU biology department because they made me question my faith”, that is EXACTLY what the dragon wants. cast DOUBT- leading to DISBELIEF- followed by DISOBEDIENCE to God. These SDA schools should be confirming and strengthening students faith not making them question it in the name of “science”!
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
6
Dr. Pitman, I do NOT disagree with you here, “Science is about interpreting the facts and coming to conclusions as to what you believe the facts are most likely telling you. Facts, without interpretation, are worthless. Science is a method of interpreting facts. Science itself isn’t actually “about factsâ€, but the interpretation of facts – big difference.” (I apologize for my lack of knowledge when it comes to quoting peoples comments.) You are correct; my point was that we learn the mainstream facts and their interpretations but we don’t mix religious views into our science curriculum. I find that to be totally acceptable of an Adventist university.
I also resent the fact that you would have the audacity to question the decisions of my parents without knowing the first thing about me or my family. Not that it is any of your business but I was an active member of the Spiritual Life team and a student missionary during my years at La Sierra University, and La Sierra University gave me the opportunity to not simply follow Adventism blindly, but to question it, explore it, and live it as my own religion. Therefore my “SDA” education, as you put it, was not a waste of time or money as you would suggest. I am not saying that I agreed with everything I was taught, but it did open my eyes to the information out there and how I should handle it.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. How would you interpret that? Typical Adventist interpretation of this passage is that the Earth was just a formless mass of water and rock. But what do the laws of physics and science tell us? They tell us that without a source of heat there is no possibility of water and we know that the sun was only created on the 4th day of creation. So the only scientific possibility was ice on the the planet, not water as the Bible says. Now let’s say there was water, without an atmosphere, the water would not be simply lying atop the surface of the rock but would dissipate into the vast expanse of space. And we know that according to Creation, the firmament was created on the 2nd day. Do you see my point? I have no problem believing that God created the world in 7-days, after all that is the only logical explanation we have for keeping the Sabbath day holy, but that requires me to not pay attention to these facts that I presented to you.
Again I ask you Dr. Pitman, why remove these teachers but keep the healthcare providers who work in our Adventist healtcare systems but clearly are not Seventh-day Adventists.
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
7
To my fellow Seventh-day Adventist whether Professors, Clergy or just a lowly layman like myself. I am gravely concerned that the debate pitting Creationist vs Theistic Evolutionist (that we now find ourselves in) is exactly what Ellen White was talking about when she said “When I first left the State of Maine, it was to go through Vermont and Massachusetts, to bear a testimony against these sentiments. “Living Temple” contains the alpha of these theories. I knew that the omega would follow in a little while; and I trembled for our people”.{SpTB02 53.2} I my view she is here clearly talking about the “alpha apostasy” that would be coming into the Seventh-day Adventist church just before the close of probation.
I am simply amazed at the position taken by those supporting the “so called science” of theistic evolution as fact. I would kindly point them to a book titled “Creation’s Tiny Mystery” by Robert V. Gentry Ph.D and challenge them to line up “Darwin’s theories” with the hard science that Dr. Gentry has proven in his book.
In my humble opinion we can debate and argue our different positions until the proverbial “cows come home” and no one will ever change their mind! All, this debate is draining our energies from the work God would have us to be doing, Preaching the “Three Angels Message” to every nation, kindred, tongue and people.
We are facing a mighty challenge for the minds and hearts of those who will be the future of our church. It is time for the those who by faith in God hold fast to the truth of a literal six day creation to stand-up and be heard. We must hold-up the doctrines and pillars of the truth given to us by God Himself without compromising our faith.
Without a literal six day creation every belief held by Seventh-day Adventist falls apart. The first to go is the Sabbath after the Sabbath we lose lose the Ten Commandments, (Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy—six days shalt thou labor). When you stop and think about it if God didn’t create the earth in six literal 24 hour days He is a liar and everything in the Whole Bible is a lie.
In the end it all comes do to faith doesn’t it “But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him”. Hebrews 11:6.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
6
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/meyer.intelligent.design/index.html
Pro-Darwin consensus doesn’t rule out intelligent design
By Stephen C. Meyer, Special to CNN
November 24, 2009
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* Stephen Meyer says there are scientific reasons to doubt consensus about Darwin’s theory
* Meyer: Fossil record challenges idea that organisms evolved from a single ancestor
* Meyer: There is compelling scientific evidence of actual intelligent design
Editor’s note: Stephen Meyer is director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which supports research challenging “neo-Darwinian theory” and supports work on the theory of “intelligent design.” He is the author of “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.” He received his Ph.D. in the Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University.
(CNN) — While we officially celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” on November 24, celebrations of Darwin’s legacy have actually been building in intensity for several years. Darwin is not just an important 19th century scientific thinker. Increasingly, he is a cultural icon.
Darwin is the subject of adulation that teeters on the edge of hero worship, expressed in everything from scholarly seminars and lecture series to best-selling new atheist tracts like those by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. The atheists claim that Darwin disproved once and for all the argument for intelligent design from nature.
And that of course is why he remains hugely controversial. A Zogby poll commissioned by the Discovery Institute this year found that 52 percent of Americans agree “the development of life was guided by intelligent design.” Those who are not scientists may wonder if they have a right to entertain skepticism about Darwinian theory.
Read a leading Darwin proponent’s view that evolution leaves no room for intelligent design theory
We are told that a consensus of scientists supporting the theory means that Darwinian evolution is no longer subject to debate. But does it ever happen that a seemingly broad consensus of scientific expertise turns out to be wrong, generated by an ideologically motivated stampeding of opinion?
Of course, that does happen. Many ideologically driven crusades in science — the earth-centered solar system and eugenics, for example — survived long after supposed evidence for these ideas evaporated. And precisely the same thing is happening today in the ideologically charged field of evolutionary biology. Indeed, there are strong scientific reasons to doubt the consensus about Darwin’s theory and what it allegedly proved.
Contrary to Darwinian orthodoxy, the fossil record actually challenges the idea that all organisms have evolved from a single common ancestor. Why? Fossil studies reveal “a biological big bang” near the beginning of the Cambrian period (520 million years ago) when many major, separate groups of organisms or “phyla” (including most animal body plans) emerged suddenly without clear precursors.
Fossil finds repeatedly have confirmed a pattern of explosive appearance and prolonged stability in living forms, not the gradual “branching-tree” pattern implied by Darwin’s common ancestry thesis.
There are also reasons to doubt the creative power of Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection. While many scientists accept that natural selection can produce small-scale “micro-evolutionary” variations, many biologists now doubt that natural selection and random mutations can generate the large-scale changes necessary to produce fundamentally new structures and forms of life.
For this reason more than 800 scientists, including professors from institutions such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale and Rice universities and members of various national (U.S., Russian, Czech, Polish) academies of science have signed a statement questioning the creative power of the selection/mutation mechanism.
Video: Actor blasts evolution
Increasingly, there are reasons to doubt the Darwinian idea that living things merely “appear” to be designed. Instead, living systems display telltale signs of actual or “intelligent” design such as the presence of complex circuits, miniature motors and digital information in living cells.
Consider the implications, for example, of one of modern biology’s most important discoveries. In 1953 when Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery. The structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code, similar to a computer code.
This discovery highlights a scientific mystery that Darwin never addressed: how did the first life on earth arise? To date no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the information needed to build the first living cell.
Instead, the digital code and information processing systems that run the show in living cells point decisively toward prior intelligent design. Indeed, we know from our repeated experience — the basis of all scientific reasoning — that systems possessing these features always arise from an intelligent source — from minds, not material processes. Darwin’s “revolutionary” legacy on display
DNA functions like a software program. We know that software comes from programmers. Information — whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, or encoded in a radio signal — always arises from a designing intelligence. So the discovery of digital code in DNA provides a strong scientific reason for concluding that the information in DNA also had an intelligent source.
Despite the consensus view that Darwin showed that “design could arise without a designer” there is now compelling scientific evidence of actual intelligent design in even the simplest living cells.
The question of biological origins has long raised profound philosophical questions. Is life the result of purely material processes or did a purposive intelligence play a role? It’s not surprising that such a worldview-shaping issue would illicit strong passions and disagreements. All the more reason to let the evidence, rather than a supposed consensus, determine the outcome of what is, in fact, a very legitimate and important debate about the Darwinian legacy.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Stephen Meyer.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
Speaking as a parent of children that have attended our colleges, and recently having a nephew attending LSU, it is with a sad heart to know that Satan has some of his followers infiltrated in our SDA schools as administrator and teachers, who even might think they are serving God and are not. Parents sacrifice much because they want their children to know God and to serve Him all their life. Years ago, my now deceased husband went through Loma Linda medical school and his residency at the White, only for him to leave the Church soon after, along with many of his classmates (or to became “their own kind of SDA”), mainly because of a teacher who destroyed the faith of these young students. It was no surprise when it was known that this teacher also gave up the Truth.
We are warned in the Bible in Isa.8:20 “…if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is NO light in them.” Lies mixed in with Truth is most dangerous. Satan said through the serpent to Eve, “…ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” It is naive to think we are not on dangerous ground thinking we need to know evil, especially for our young people (actually dangerous for all ages) whose parents want them to know how “to make your calling and election sure.” 2 Peter 1:2-11.
Shaun, Bless you for daring to be a Daniel. I pray that our Church leaders will also stand up for God’s will for our young people to be taught His Word.
We have been warned that false prophets and teachers will come in … but we do not need “to behold” these evils.
Lorna Duterrow
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
I have some questions for those who believe in Darwinian evolution:
How does an organism without an eye sense any need to develop one?
How does an organism without hearing know there are such things as sound waves, and therefore generate ears to hear them?
How does an organism generate such things as a sense of balance, a natural compass, or a sense of taste? Are these things necessary for survival? Is taste necessary? Is it necessary in order to desire to consume calories? Is the nerve to the stomach necessary which tells the brain the stomach is empty? If this is necessary in order for the organism to consume life-sustaining foods, what happened to animals prior to the evolution of said nerves?
And here’s a big one:
Suppose that the above questions are answered to say that these senses developed without actual need for them, simply because of their increased utility given the animals’ environment–when are we going to evolve an internal sense of radio-hearing (or for that matter, television reception)? What about a sense of RADAR (survival of the fittest here, in avoiding those speed traps)?
To me, the whole concept of such things as our eyes, ears, immune system, etc. having evolved is simply preposterous–and he is a fool who would teach such, knowing the truth of the Bible, but shutting out its Light. LSU teachers and administrators ought to know better. Even the world’s scientists should. But no one “properly” educated and sophisticated would dare suggest the king has no clothes; no, it is up to us children of God to do so.
On the other hand, God is coming very soon. He will set the record straight, and woe to those who have taught error while having the truth! I would not wish to be in their shoes in that judgment hour.
Erik
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
@Frank:
You can’t separate science and useful religion. Science is simply a way of determining one’s beliefs about what the data says. You argued that science isn’t about beliefs, but that is exactly what it’s about. Scientific beliefs have religious implications. And, religious beliefs which aren’t based on scientific reasoning and actual evidence are worthless – as I’ve already explained.
I’m sorry, but when you have science teachers at LSU teaching essentially the same evolutionary doctrine that you can get at UCR down the street for a 10th of the cost, what’s the point in having an SDA Church school? Your parents may not mind, but I personally know many that do… especially when LSU is not being forthright about what is actually being taught as “the truth” in many if not all of its science classrooms.
I personally would never send my own son to a “SDA” school like LSU. I’d rather send him to a public university where at least everyone knows what is actually being taught and nobody is trying to hide or cover anything up regarding the type of education that is being provided.
I disagree. The Genesis account makes perfect scientific sense as a literal description of the creation week from an Earth-bound perspective. The Sun, Moon, and stars simply became visible on day 4. The universe and solar system were likely already here long before the creation of the features necessary to support life on this planet – as hinted at in Job when the Sons of God sang together at the creation of our world (Where did the Sons of God live if all the stars were made on day 4?).
Also, water would not simply dissipate into space. It isn’t the atmosphere that keeps the water from flying off into space as you suggest. It is this thing called gravity that does that (with a bit of help from the Earth’s magnetic field effect that blocks the solar wind from stripping off the Earth’s atmosphere and water).
The healthcare workers are not being paid to teach their ideas on SDA doctrines. They are paid for their services in a particular field of importance – i.e., care for the sick. You don’t need to be a SDA to be an effective healthcare worker in most areas of healthcare. You do need to be SDA to be an effective SDA pastor or teacher…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
@Erik:
OK, Erik, I’ll have a go at answering your questions:
This one has been asked and answered many times, and is based in a misconception. There is no direction in evolution: living things don’t think “I need a tail” and then think really hard about it and grow a tail. Rather, a random genetic variation causes (in the case of the eye question) a particular patch of skin to be more sensitive to light than most skin. And we see living things with just such sensitive areas on their skins. Now, the creature with the light-sensitive patch – say it’s a kind of slug – is able to search out shade rather than sun, and avoid drying out and dying. That is, the light sensitive patch confers a survival advantage. Slugs with it die less often before breeding than slugs without it. Therefore, over time, more and more slugs in a given population will have the light-sensitive patch, since the ones with it out-breed the ones without it.
Then, chapter two, a mutation causes a light-sensitive patch with a dip in the middle. Now the slug can not only tell whether it’s light or dark, but which direction the light is coming from (by which side of the dip is lighted and which is in shadow). That makes it *much* better at knowing which way to crawl to find shade and get out of the sun. This again confers a survival advantage, meaning slugs with this advantage outbreed those without it, and soon all the slugs have this advantage. And then there are many, many more chapters as the patch becomes a dip becomes a cave, becomes a cave with a membrane, a cave with a lens, develops lids and muscles to allow it to swivel, and so on.
Now, two comments:
1. You may not find this description plausible. But it is an answer to your question… it is not impossible for an eye to evolve, not because the creature decides it needs one, but because each random mutation that is a step along the way offers a survival advantage and natural selection does the rest.
2. (Not that I’ll be believed when I say it for the 10th time any more than the other 9) Explaining evolution is not advocating evolution. I am not saying that this is how the eye arose. You asked (in essence) “How do evolutionists explain the eye?”, and I told you. Not because I believe it, but because I understand it.
Ever been to a really loud concert, and felt the sound in your chest? Maybe not, but there are plenty of examples where we can feel sound with our whole bodies… and could even if we were stone deaf. Any part of a body that is like a stretched membrane (like an eardrum, but much less specialised) will resonate with sound, and putting it in a pit (and putting one on either side of the head) will yield information about direction. The process is similar to that for the eye: start with a very, very rudimentary ability to sense sound, and that confers a survival advantage… and natural selection does the rest, over enough time.
Animals who didn’t know their stomachs were empty were probably protozoa… the idea that there were, for example, large, visible mammals or reptiles that didn’t know they were hungry is just silly. But yes, all of those things are – ‘necessary’ is not the right word: they offer a survival advantage. A sense of taste is excellent for not eating poisonous or rotten food… and creatures that can avoid poisonous or rotten food are more likely to survive and to breed. And so on. The answer is clear: they don’t have to be *necessary* for survival, but they do have to offer a survival advantage. And the things you list, simply do.
It’s possible that we might, given enough time, if those senses offered a survival advantage. I suspect (to be slightly facetious for a moment) that a TV-reception sense would have a number of strong survival disadvantages. It’s possible to imagine a way in which being able to sense police radar directly, for example, could have a survival advantage, though again, the balance of probability is the other way around, since a sense that allows someone to drive too fast all the time is unlikely to enhance their chances of survival.
I haven’t talked much about the third key ingredient of evolution though – lots and lots of time. Marconi invented radio in 1895. Call it 120 years to be generous, and call a human generation 20 years, and we’re only 6 generations away from there being anything at all to detect… it would require *millions* of generations to evolve a complex new set of senses, starting with an ever-so-slight ringing in the ear (or mind, or elbow) that signalled the presence of radio waves…
The fact that we have not yet developed such a sense does not at all refute evolutionary theory, since it’s the kind of thing evolutionary theory explicitly predicts will not happen on this time scale.
And now I wish I’d gone home to my waiting dinner rather than spend half an hour answering your questions: your mind is made up and you already knew all the answers all along.
Guess I just have to hope someone else finds thoughtful, careful, reasonable answers to these kinds of questions useful.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
As I have read this debate something strikes me:
Evolutionists seem to be mainly arguing that the theory of Darwinian evolution is the valid scientific theory that should be taught in our schools. It is the main idea supported by the scientific community at this time.
Creationists argue from two points:
1) That the theory of Darwinian evolution has many scientific holes in it and thus is not as valid as evolutionists think it is. They are not saying that Darwinian evolution shouldn’t be taught in Adventist science classes, but rather it should not be taught as the preferred and true basis for existence and design.
2) Creationists argue that no matter how valid or invalid the theory of evolution is, it is wrong for teachers in an Adventist educational system that promises to teach Adventist beliefs to teach contrary to Adventist doctrine. The teaching of evolution in our schools is disingenuous and borders on outright deception to those who send their children to our schools thinking they are going to get an “Adventist†education. It is stealing by the teachers and administrators who are knowingly carrying it out or allow it to be carried out. They argue that the teaching of Darwinian evolution as true, or at least as the preferred theory of origins and design is a subversive element in our educational institutions.
The Evolutionists on the other hand, do not seem to address this second question or the morality of the argument. I fault them for that. It is a valid argument that needs to be addressed which they have failed to do but rather talk around it. What is argued on their side instead is the secular concept of higher education. This concept is that colleges and universities must have academic freedom to teach whatever the professor believes needs to be taught, whether or not this matches the ideology of the institution or the church.
These two sides are operating on two totally different basic premises and thus will continue to talk past each other.
The real debate in my opinion is not the truth of Darwinian evolution per se but rather:
1) Should Adventist higher education be ideological and allow academic freedom only within the limits of the Adventist ideological framework? Or…
2) Should Adventist higher education ascribe to the concept of unlimited Academic freedom that characterizes secular colleges?
From what I can see, even secular colleges do not have truly unlimited academic freedom. A professor cannot truly teach whatever he wants or may believe no matter how unorthodox. There is an ideological boundary even in public education. A professor cannot teach as truth that the earth is flat or that the earth is on the back of a giant turtle, etc. etc. The question then becomes: Where is the ideological boundary going to be set and who is going to set it? Is it the church? Is it the secular scientific community?
In my opinion, the boundary should be set by whoever is paying the bill. Those who would be negatively affected by using that criteria probably would disagree but it seems appropriate in this case that the “golden rule†of “He who has the gold makes the rules†should prevail.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
A good post and a good point, Brian: thoughtful discussions like this that draw useful distinctions and clarify the issues are very valuable.
I think the issue is slightly different, though: I have seen the academic freedom arguments, but, like you, don’t find them completely convincing. I do agree that any educational institution has the right to dictate what is taught in it.
I see two issues:
1. (a two-parter) (a) As I’ve said, I believe that the professors have not stolen from anyone – they’ve taught what they were asked to teach and understood to be teaching by their direct employers in the university and (b) what they taught were thoughtful, complex, connected and philosophically sophisticated courses that looked at the religious, philosophical and scientific issues around origins. Students who believed in creationism clearly came through the courses with their faith intact, as they have reported here.
2. Is it possible to teach biology in the 21st century without teaching *about* evolution? Most biologists would say not. So it’s not so much an issue about academic freedom as about whether, if it’s not possible to teach biology without teaching *about* evolution, should biology be taught at SDA institutions at all? (The same probably applies to geology and long ages.)
I’m waiting for the rigorous, scientifically credible recent creationism that is the planned outcome of the LSU inquiry process.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
12