If the “Steve Daily” that wrote that article is the …

Comment on Letter to Press Enterprise Editor by BobRyan.

If the “Steve Daily” that wrote that article is the same “Steve Daily” of the “Celebration Center” and Rodney Howard Brown’s form of charismania then he is significantly understating “I am in no way a fan of Adventist fundamentalism” .

If Steve Daily “gets the point” then I say that the evolutionists have just “been served”.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan Also Commented

Letter to Press Enterprise Editor
Sadly the feelings of Israel about Korah were of the sort that says that the sins that bring about the displeasure of God – should not be dealt with.

The 3T section on Laodicea is very “instructive” on this point as it turns out.

3SG 90-91 is also “very instructive” as to what the church should do with evolutionism.

Ex 20:8-11 is “very instructive” about the amount of time that GOD says HE took in making all life on earth.

Sadly – these sources of information are not of as much interest to some – as to others.

And we knew that to start with. What we did not know – was how far this opposition to the Christian view on “origins” had gained a foothold in certain SDA institutions of learning.

But it is all coming to the light of day now – and surely that has to be upsetting for some.

in Christ,

Bob


Letter to Press Enterprise Editor
@Daniel Urrutia, M.D.:

We all long for our children to be saved. We must not allow these evils to continue in LSU or any of our institutions, for our silence has endorsed these evils in the past. We have no choice but to sound the trumpet of concern lest “their blood be upon us”. May the Lord give us the true kind of love that is not afraid to admonish and warn with true meekness and kindness yet without fear of man’s wrath. Let us fear God rather than man!

Excellent points Daniel.

1. silence has endorsed these evils.
2. Adventists should all stand and sound the trumpet of alarm so that the blood of students who have been mislead by LSU staff will not be upon us.

Finally, while there are some professors in LSU who do teach and exemplify the Adventist beliefs, too many of them live and teach a generic “Christianity”.

This is another excellent point. Even among those staff who are not “in the tank” for evolutionism – we may find “enablers” of evolutionists. Those with just enough of a “generisized Christianity” to defend and provide “cover” for those evolutionist evangelists that would work to separate this school from it’s denomination.

We are well acquainted with LSU. We are alumni and so are our 2 sons and numerous relatives and friends. We know first hand that the concerns that have been brought to the forefront by Educate Truth and others are fact.

No wonder then that we have evolutionists here complaining that this is getting out into the “light of day” and people are taking notice denomination wide.

I heard of a conference president recently make the observation that “about a decade ago we had a problem with Walla Walla and now it has come up again – at LSU”.

But as Bradley and Fritz Guy and Taylor and others have noted – this problem at LSU has been cooking for a lot longer than ten years.

We are proud of the young people such as Louie Bishop, who have been willing to confront “Goliath”. May the Lord continue to strengthen them and make them fearless and true to Him.

Amen. We need to find those brave souls and strongly support the ones who are willing to stand up to this backroom effort working its way through our schools.

It is too late for the church (from the bottom up!) to be sleeping! The Lord is raising up an army of young people who are not afraid to call sin by its right name. Let us older ones fully support them with every talent and means that we have been given. May we all draw close to Him and be willing to “prepare the way” for His soon appearing!

Amen and amen!

in Christ,

Bob


Letter to Press Enterprise Editor
@Frank L.:

Frank quotes Steve Daily —

While the University strongly claims to be an “Adventist Christian” school, receives large sums of money from the Adventist Church, and assures the parents of their students who are sacrificing to pay expensive University tuition that they are getting a good “Adventist education,”

1. LSU deliberately employs faculty who aggressively and overtly undermine and oppose this mission.

This has been going on for more than a decade and it is not unique to the discipline of Biology or the subject of evolution.

2. I taught and pastored on the campus for nearly twenty years and was devastated to see how those with a postmodern agenda came into power in the late 1990s and not only made a mockery of Orthodox Adventist teaching, but orthodox Christian teaching as well (See Press Enterprise “La Sierra Students Criticize CORE Classes” May 22, 1999 pp. B-1, B-6).

Students were being taught in required freshman classes that Jesus was not God,

that God is not a personal Being,

that Monotheism is the worst and most dangerous of all religions,

and many other views that were a complete betrayal of orthodox Christianity.

All of this was done while the University paraded itself in its PR publications as a loyal Adventist school. I am in no way a fan of Adventist fundamentalism, but ironically, La Sierra University has fueled fundamentalism in the church like no other force by its willingness to allow extreme liberals to run the school.

They have put other SDA universities at risk and made them vulnerable to unnecessary witchhunts because of their own irresponsible and indefensible course of action. It is my hope and prayer that the board asks some very hard questions on November 12, and demands some much needed changes.”

Frank says
The letter suggests that your obsession with science teaching (read: denying science in favor of belief in evolutionism) is but a small concern. If his claims are correct, your website should be addressing instead the nature of Jesus.

First of all – many thanks for the full quote. Much appreciated.

1. Daily never says that the false religion of evolutionism “is a small concern” in the quote you provided.

2. Daily never argues for allowing the denial of all christianity in the form of evolutionism and only opposing the denial of all Christianity on other foundational doctrines.

Though we can see how the compromise and collapse of Christian doctrine central to evolutionism – so naturally and logically leads to the denial of the other basic Christian doctrines Daily lists. So there is actually not much of a surprise there.

3. Daily’s theme at Celebration Center is more along the lines of uplifting ecumenism inside of a broad tent of “orthodox Christianity” in general and so dumping anything like a “distinctive” in Adventism as being of any significance at all beyond peculiar cultural preference of one of many denominations. Thus when he sees LSU attacking not only the distinctives of Adventism – but the core doctrines of Christianity itself – he is very consistent in being “concerned”.

4. Notice that Daily is “drawing a line” and insisting that the LSU program IS NOT “Adventist Christian” in it’s CORE classes that oppose Adventists and is not even the much more generalized and large-tented “orthodox Christian”!

How sad that our evolutionist friends are standing in the shadowed background on that one – with Daily having more light and clarity than they do!

How “instructive” for the unbiased objective reader.

in Christ,

Bob


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?

Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?

Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.

“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)

Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.

(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)

By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
Gentlemen,

What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.

An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.

1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..

2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.

3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.

4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).

In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.

Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??

Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.

hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.

The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis

Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind