LSU Board says ‘we apologize’

In a surprising turn of events, LSU Board’s appointed Creation-Evolution Study Group issued a detailed memorandum to the board, outlining their report and recommendations regarding the allegations against LSU.

In addition to the memorandum, Randal Wisbey and Ricardo Graham issued an open letter, summarizing much of the memorandum. There are some noteworthy revelations in the letter, such as an apology and a concession to what Educate Truth and others have been claiming was occurring in the biology department:

[1] “We found that only 50 percent of the students surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that our Adventist view of creation was presented, and only 40 per- cent agreed or strongly agreed that our Adventist view was supported. This is not acceptable, and we apologize.”

[2] “Instruction at the university, while being strong in many areas, has not adequately presented the denomination’s position on the subject of creation.”

[3] “There is some evidence that students have not always been respected for their belief in the Biblical creation position.”

The letter ends with this final thought:

“La Sierra University is committed to being an institution that does not just present the Church’s view of creation, but fully supports it. We pledge our commitment to work prayerfully and diligently to ensure that our mission to provide a rigorous and faith-affirming Seventh- day Adventist education is carried out on behalf of our students and our Church.”

OpenLetterReCreationLSU

Share on Facebook0Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn1Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

64 thoughts on “LSU Board says ‘we apologize’

  1. So the biology professors will continue to teach under a new level of restraint? There is an old saying that “one convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” Religious resolve would seem to dictate true repentance and sorrow by cleaning house after their discovery interviews with students. What is the value of a soul when their findings conclude some left religion altogether after sitting at the feet of some of these professors? Do Wisby and Graham sigh and cry over that? Will someone in authority over that institution seek them out in an effort to apologize, ask for their forgiveness and attempt to regain them?




    0
    View Comment
  2. I’m not quite sure how professors who already believe in mainstream evolutionary theories of life existing and evolving on this planet over hundreds of millions of years of time are going to be effective in presenting the SDA position on origins? – i.e., that life was created in just six literal days within recent history?

    It seems futile to me to make these professors attend GRI workshops – like that is going to change their minds or make them more effective at promoting the Church’s position on origins in their classrooms as remotely rational or scientific compared to the mainstream scientific perspective on origins.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  3. Dear Shane and Sean

    I want to congratulate you both as it is apparent that the efforts of Educate Truth are reflected in LSU reevaluating its position.

    Sean’s point about the GRI may be academic, if the GRI itself has members that doubt or question recent six day creation.

    Note that LSU states they will have the biology department ‘present’ the
    SDA’s position on creation, not necessarily teach it.

    Kudos on your efforts
    Your agnostic friend
    Ken




    0
    View Comment
  4. Ken and Sean are both making the case that the idea that LSU would actually put the horse back in the barn – after it is out to this extent — is highly unlikely and the fact that GRI itself is somewhat fractured on this topic only plays into the hands of anyone that may not be on board with reform at LSU.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  5. When NPUC decided to solve the problem at Walla Walla – significant changes were made in the staffing of the WW religion and biology departments.

    I don’t see anything close to that level of resolve in the Pacific Union.

    Hopefully I am wrong.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  6. It appears that most of the changes are superficial. Why? Where is the evidence that something is being changed in the classroom? What’s happening to the curriculum?

    The survey is a joke. I’d like to know how many students actually took general biology or were biology majors in the last 4 years. I bet it was more than 400.




    0
    View Comment
  7. There were indeed a few problems with the survey. For example, the language of the survey wasn’t specific enough to be as meaningful as it could have been. It didn’t ask, for instance, “Did your LSU science professors promote the Seventh-day Adventist perspective on origins with regard to the validity of a literal six-day creation week for the origin of all life on this planet within recent history?”

    I dare say the response to such a question would have been a universal “No” from all honest responders. However, at least the survey did tip the scales enough so that LSU felt forced to make a public statement of apology. What it and the Church actually does to correct the errors of the past, errors and attacks on the Church’s fundamental goals and ideals for decades, is a whole different matter. So far, I don’t see any advances or recomendations that meaningfully solve the this long-standing problem for the Church within its schools of higher education.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  8. This letter is a step in the right direction and the truth is finally being revealed. However, I did not like the last section. In an Adventist School where so many of our children have left the campus with doubts about creation and believing in evolution the biology teachers deserve recognition and respect?

    Will the GC hold the leadership or the biology dept. responsible for their lies and deception or will it just be politics as usual? Recognition and Respect?! Lord help us, LSU, and our denomination.

    Thanks to you Dr. Sean for your leadership in all of this!

    Pastor Cook




    0
    View Comment
  9. The memo, letter and attached report involves over 30 pages of double speak to address the creation/evolution controversy—it’s not hard to see where that tactic leads. Despite the words attempting to convey apology and reform and standing true for church principles, at the same time there are statements which excuse or provide convenient outs. Nor are there any real apologies noted. Where is a published apology to the hundreds of students in the past who signed petitions? Where is a published apology to Louie Bishop?

    The Board appointed evolution/creation study committee concluded that any tangible hands-on-investigation such as looking at curriculum or visiting classrooms or talking directly with the teachers was beyond their expertise, therefore the Provost conceived the survey idea. But even with the survey results, notice this disclaimer: “The only way in which to fully benchmark these results, however, would be to have this same survey conducted by La Sierra’s sister institutions in North America. Without such comparisons, any criticism of La Sierra’s effectiveness at supporting Adventist beliefs relative to other institutions is speculative, at best. It would be helpful if other Adventist institutions could work on the curriculum challenges surrounding this issue in a collaborative manner.”

    The philosophizing in the committee’s report does nothing to clarify; it supports the notion that no matter what is taught, it is under the rubric of higher education and academic freedom (yet still supposedly under the SDA umbrella — an umbrella that they have stretched beyond recognition)..“The educational enterprise by its very nature introduces students to new ideas and new ways of looking at the world that are often very different from what they have known before. This can sometimes create tension and anxiety, but never more so than when the new ideas seem to contradict deeply held belief whether in the social, political or religious domain.” Joel Martin is quoted, “Religion is not a science and should never masquerade as such.” Then further talk of the arrogance of both sides.

    How can any organization maintain its distinct identity if it attempts to coexist with pluralism? Truth is always consistent with itself. Those of us who send our children to Adventist schools did not pack their heads full of Santa Clause stories and then complain because our children are being taught something different in their advanced classes. No, we brought them up believing in God, His Word and the foundational principles of Christianity (specifically the SDA worldview) and there is no reason that those beliefs should be attacked and discredited at a Seventh-day Adventist school. “Advanced” instruction in ANY field of learning taught within a SDA institution does not give license to discredit SDA beliefs and values.

    Even though LSU is admitting that listening to constituents was lacking on their part, yet: “Nevertheless, at least as worrisome as the issue of how the university’s biology curriculum presents creation and evolution is the hostility and the lack of civility with which some members of the constituency have conducted the dialogue of this issue.” Well, that lets them off the hook! They don’t have to listen to anyone who doesn’t support their agenda, because of course, those people are not “civil” or “reasonable.”

    And finally, all of this tempest in a teapot is going to dissipate because: they’re going to have ongoing workshops; ongoing surveys (which are only valid if the other SDA universities do likewise); they bring in people like Chris Oberg to explain scripture and LSU’s administration is on the job—neither faculty nor board members are to speak on their own. The faculty cannot because they are “not experts at speaking outside the classroom” and the Board, by their own by-laws, are required to put smiley rubber stamps on all actions voted by the majority (under the watchful eye of the president and the attorney.) All “results” will be filtered through the administration and PR. Furthermore the Board has been admonished to focus on the more positive aspects of the university. There. It is all fixed. And the future propaganda will verify the fact. Just wait and see.

    Amidst all of this scrambling for explanations, where is LSU’s clear statement affirming creation? By comparison, here’s what a clear statement looks like:

    https://www.southern.edu/faithandscience/position/Pages/universitystatementoncreation.aspx




    0
    View Comment
  10. From the Spectrum Blog:
    http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/03/09/la-sierra-university-board-releases-documents#comment-83068

    Daniel,

    You wrote:

    It is sad that we are willing to send our 18-year-olds into war and we allow them to vote for our local, state, and national leaders, but we cannot permit them to participate in discussions about evolution without having to frame said discussions so that only one conclusion can be reached. Not much of a discussion, in my opinion. Worse yet, not much of an institution of higher learning.

    You misunderstand the basic argument in play here. We definitely want our young people to know everything there is to know about the modern theory of evolution. They should be taught about this theory. However, they should not be taught that this theory is clearly valid or that it is the best availbable scientific theory of origins.

    Our own young people should also be exposed to the evidence, the abundant evidence, that is available in support of the SDA Church’s position on origins – i.e., a recent arival of life on this planet, the lack of a viable evolutionary mechanism for change beyond very low levels of functional complexity, and the evidence for a recent catastrophic formation of much of the geologic column and fossil records.

    Our students at LSU simply are not well versed in the evidence for Creation [at least not the SDA view of Creation]. They are only well versed in the arguments for mainstream evolutionary biology. That’s the problem.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  11. Bob Ryan wrote:

    When NPUC decided to solve the problem at Walla Walla – significant changes were made in the staffing of the WW religion and biology departments.

    I asked my SDA biologist colleague, who is very well informed, what happened at Walla Walla. The answer was a shocker to me: the claim here is completely bogus, vicious, and slanderous. He tells me there have been NO full-time faculty firings from Biology, and NONE of the departures in recent decades have had any bearing on creation-evolution issues.

    I challenge Bob to tell us, specifically, what staffing changes were made in the Walla Walla biology department. What ARE you talking about?




    0
    View Comment
  12. I am continually saddened by how faithful SDAs speak of and treat their leadership–God’s appointed shephards of the flock. The tone of responses here disappoints me. I don’t think there are steps drastic enough short of outright replacement of faculty and administrators that will make many of you people happy (although your message on whether you want people fired is very mixed: the “official” ET position is not advocating firing, whereas Sean Pitman is unapologetic in his demands that individuals be fired, and not just LSU, but also Geoscience Research Institue).

    Personally, I was pleased to see that LSU, the local conference and union, and the AAA have been taking steps to understand the issues and seek a resolution. Of course this is a step in the right direction. I think you guys have clearly “won” in the sense that LSU concedes there has been a problem and feels compelled to ensure it is not continued. You’ve won…unless a feast upon carcasses is REALLY what you’re after.




    0
    View Comment
  13. Professor Kent said…..

    “I am continually saddened by how faithful SDAs speak of and treat their leadership–God’s appointed shephards of the flock.”

    Are you suggesting that all leaders are “God’s appointed shephards of the flock.”?

    I personally doubt this idea. And I am not suggesting that none are being used of God. But this sweeping endorsement doesn’t seem to fit the reality.

    After many decades of faulty leadership in many areas, it would seem inevitable that the credibility gap would widen more and more and polarization would be the result. When the church opted for pluralism after the Dr. Ford fiasco, we could only agree with Solomon, “The curse causeless shall not come.”

    The devil uses time to his best advantage, and modern Adventism is the product of what happens repeatedly in history. Given enough time, Satan will corrupt everything God ordains to advance God’s kingdom. Satan then uses this instrumentality for his own purpose and kingdom after he has infiltrated the church and undermined its mission and message.

    So EGW has rightly said, “Two parties will be developed.” Exactly how to deal with all the issues is not so easily discerned. None the less, we better realize that all is not well and the “peace and safety” message is bogus.

    Loyalty to “the church” has often been misunderstood as “loyalty to Christ” and the results have always been the same. The church takes the place of Christ and becomes the antichrist in this world. Adventism is not beyond this possibility.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  14. What Professor Kent and others are missing is that the Seventh-day Adventist Church as well as all of it’s educational institutions are all a CORPORATION. If one were to work for a CORPORATION such as Microsoft, IBM, etc., and were not doing the job they were hired for they would be fired. As a CORPORATION the SDA church should do no less. All employees of the church and its various institutions are only CORPORATE employees. If you don’t believe me go look at the name on the conference office. It says SOUTHEAST CALIFORNIA CORPORATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS. If you want to see the CORPORATION at work, just use the name SDA or SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST for an independent ministry and see how fast they sue you. Unfortunately the infiltration mentioned is true. The CATHOLIC CHURCH CORPORATION wants to see nothing less than the true message of the scriptures made of none-effect, and what better way to do that than to present fable as truth. The advent messsage has been the truth since 1844 and Satan has used men like Canright, Kellogg, Ford, and anyone else including professors and “God’s appointed shepards” to discredit and water down the true message for this time.

    Should these professors be fired? Absolutely. Should the “leaders” of the conference be fired for not upholding the fundamental teachings of the Adventist church? Absolutely. These men and or women who teach anything other than the undiluted three angles messages are only CORPORATE employees. Fire them. We have not heard much from the President of the General Conference lately, has he backed down?




    0
    View Comment
  15. Concerning the “apology” by the LSU board. That is cheap talk. It’s only a way of getting the heat off the situation. If they were truly sorry and repentant there would be changes made. Otherwise it is only political rhetoric. It’s kind of like a thief apologizing after he got caught. This University has stolen from the constituents of each church by taking their hard earned money for the truth they thought was being taught and giving a lie in return. Perhaps they should be sued for fraud?




    0
    View Comment
  16. Wayne, I totally agree that the Church’s employees MUST abide by employment conditions. I also agree that the biology and religion faculty MUST teach and treat SDA doctrines with respect. I have never suggested otherwise. I’m continually amazed by how my position gets distorted.

    However, I don’t think that we should be in the business of firing every employee who does not adhere to every general position of faith and behavior. I know for a fact that many Church employees drink alcohol. Many dance. Many eat meat, including unclean meats. Many have divorced for inappropriate reasons. [edit] Many believe that God’s Word cannot be accepted on faith. Should they all be fired outright, or should we attempt to educate and rehabilitate them when we learn of their shortcomings? So far as we know, the LSU administration has made clear to these employees that they are to cease and desist with any teachings and treatment that gave rise to the ongoing witch hunt. And the employees may well have reformed.

    The documents released by La Sierra include the names of MANY Church individuals, including prominent church leaders, who have made a sincere effort to address the issue at hand. When you label the apology that was accompanied with very extensive documentation as “fraud,” you are indicting all who have been involved with the process of discovery and finding a solution. Can you be a little more charitable?




    0
    View Comment
  17. Professor Kent,

    And exactly how are these people then held accountable? For so many years/decades, our youth has been misled even humiliated, concerned parents have been lied to, and the Lord’s money, wasted. Charitable? That’s exactly what the church(on every level) has been until now, and I believe our church leaders will answer one day for being asleep at the helm.

    Teaching in our schools is not just another job. It is an awesome responsibility, the effects of which will have repercussions for generations of people and either help steer them to Christ or away from Him. When one accepts this responsibility, wouldn’t you agree that this is far different than a single person’s choice to drink alcohol and the effect it has, on one or a small number of lives? Personally, I believe that the church should stay consistent with expectations for its employees on all levels, even “general positions on faith and behaviour”, but if it does not, then can what LaSierra’s professors have done really fall in this same category, or do we need to asses first and foremost what the fallout has been, and what the potential risk is if they were to continue to teach?

    One more point: If we have any hope of winning back any of the precious souls lost because of this, then the message has to be clear and unequivocal — What happend was not right. What you were taught was not right. These professors have no place teaching at our schools — The charity we extend has to do with continued patience and love for them as church members, not as employees. Just like you would not award custody of an abused child to his abusive, albeit remorseful parents, neither should we leave these professors to continue teaching our youth. How could we trust them again, or ever?

    I look forward to reading your suggestions.

    Angelina




    0
    View Comment
  18. Angelina,

    We all live and work in circumstances where we do not agree with all of the policies we are expected to abide by. We all support a government which implements policies some of which we disagree with. Any Church employee must respect the employment conditions and policies, regardless of how they feel about them. I have taught at a number of private and public universities, and have disagreed with certain policies that I nevertheless respected.

    In practical terms, I would bet money these faculty signed agreements that stipulated behavioral policies that they were to uphold. I would bet my right shin bone, however, that they never signed an agreement that said “you can teach microevolution but not any form of evolution that exceeds the species level.” You can’t fire employees who have broken no conditions of employment. It’s not ethical, legal, or Christ-like (although Christian employers often do operate independently of ethical, legal, and Christian concerns). Of course, the conditions of employment now need to be made more explicit, and La Sierra appears to be implementing change. It’s up to the employee now to decide what they wish to do.

    In practical terms, things get much worse. Last year, Southern Adventist University and Southwestern Adventist University advertised something like FIVE biology positions that went unfilled. They are advertising these same positions again this year. I’m told by reliable sources that the Church DOES NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT QUALIFIED FAITHFUL BIOLOGISTS to replace the faculty you wish to see fired. Eddie and others here have tried to jumpstart a discussion to help resolve this latter issue, but no one seems interested. Many of you want to just fire employees with no consideration of the consequences.

    On a final point, God is much more interested in restorative than retributive (punitive) actions. If this was not the case, we would not be here today having this discussion.

    Until the whole world hears,
    Professor Kent




    0
    View Comment
  19. If we have any hope of winning back any of the precious souls lost because of this, then the message has to be clear and unequivocal — What happend was not right. What you were taught was not right.

    Oh right, because having a papal bull style declaration is somehow going to change the position of those who have examined real, mainstream science and come to their conclusion.

    Interesting line of thought…




    0
    View Comment
  20. It appears that most of the changes are superficial. Why? Where is the evidence that something is being changed in the classroom? What’s happening to the curriculum?

    The survey is a joke. I’d like to know how many students actually took general biology or were biology majors in the last 4 years. I bet it was more than 400.

    I’ve done some digging around LaSierra.edu and found out they don’t have that many graduating biology majors. I think the average is around 26.

    I’m retracting my earlier comment about the number of students who tool general biology. There are other GE science classes available, so not every student ends up taking this class.

    I do have questions about how representative the survey is the biology students.

    For example, take question number 8 which asks, “The Seventh-day Adventist view of creation was presented in biology classes.” Fifty-percent agreed, and 44% were neutral or disagreed. We have no idea what non-respondents would have answered. In other words, we don’t know how the other 278 students who didn’t respond would have answered. So only 46 (12% of students surveyed) students over the last four years plus 2000 agreed the Seventh-day Adventist view of creation was presented in biology classes.

    They tried. Aren’t there more accurate assessments of what students have learned than a survey?




    0
    View Comment
  21. Professor Kent,

    Thank you for your reply, but I’m not sure you answered my question, at least I hope you haven’t: How exactly are these professors (administrators etc) held accountable? From your relatively non-commital comments above, it seems you would leave it up to these professors (and I include administrators and any others in position of authority who should have taken action but didn’t) to decide whether, under new, more explicit job descriptions they choose to stay or leave. Really? Is this what you would do? Are you implying that the church does not have cause to terminate their employment? Are you saying that after a decade or more of their lies and deception, this is all we can do, revise the job description? Are you telling me that it is not a condition of employment to uphold the church’s fundamental beliefs, whether implicit or explicit? Please tell me this isn’t your solution.

    Many years ago, I worked for a Catholic charity organization. At worship one morning the President who was also a Priest, made a jaw-dropping statement. He said, “There is no such thing as good and evil. God and Satan don’t really exist.” What do you think happened? He was quietly relieved of his duties and sent to work in a mission field with natives struggling with addictions such as glue sniffing, alcoholism and pornography, to see first hand the effects of evil. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church’s track record is abysmal when it comes to taking action for wayward priests, but in this instance their reaction was swift and unequivocal. Do you think it was stipulated somewhere in this Priest’s contract that he has to believe in good and evil?

    Since we are also short on pastors, maybe we should hire a few from the Presbyterians, or from Jehovah’s Witnesses….Doesn’t matter, does it?

    Keeping these professors because there may not be others would be a testament to our lack of faith. God will provide in His time. The primary concern, as I see it, is not who will replace these professors, but rather, how to restore trust and credibility so that our youth and their parents, past, present and future can feel certain once again that we are all on the same page.

    I fully agree with your final point. However, firing these employees would not be punitive in my perspective. They repeatedly made choices, and perhaps still stand by those choices, that went counter to what our institution is about. They lied when questioned, conveniently “laid low until it blew over”, openly ridiculed students for their bible-based beliefs and on and on. By making these choices, they also chose the consequences that they should have faced ions ago. Did Jesus stand by and give the moneychangers the choice to stay if they changed their behaviour? No. He loved them none the less, and undoubtedly prayed for them, as we should too for these employees, but our Christian duty, to protect and promote Truth, demands we do more.

    Thank you
    Angelina




    0
    View Comment
  22. “…..but our Christian duty, to protect and promote Truth, demands we do more.”

    Thank you
    Angelina

    This is correct. And sometimes restoration is by way of punishment. Professor Kent needs to consider this reality when he said…..

    “On a final point, God is much more interested in restorative than retributive (punitive) actions.”

    None the less, I doubt much will be done in the final end of all this.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  23. @Adventist in High School:

    With all due respect, true scientists remain objective until they have exhausted and considered ALL angles, including thoroughly considering Creationism. From all that has been said, many former La Sierra biology students were not even given this opportunity because their professors refused to teach it and ridiculed students if they dared bring it up. Interesting…. Who has been the bully exactly?




    0
    View Comment
  24. @Angelina:

    Keeping these professors because there may not be others would be a testament to our lack of faith. God will provide in His time.

    …As he has done so generously at Southern Adventist University with, what is it, four Biology positions open?




    0
    View Comment
  25. @Angelina:

    With all due respect, true scientists remain objective until they have exhausted and considered ALL angles, including thoroughly considering Creationism.

    That would be nice if creationism was science. Perhaps you should read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. My friends and I read it at Academy together. Asking a Scientist to prove that evolution is true is akin to denying that Latin ever existed to a Spanish teacher. A quite ridiculous proposition. Thus, all scientific angles should be considered, and when I say science, I mean, mainstream peer-reviewed science.

    …ridiculed students if they dared bring it up. Interesting…. Who has been the bully exactly?

    Those are unsubstantiated accusations. What we had was a largely orchestrated campaign of character assassination against professors at La Sierra by the extreme right-wing element in the church, the equivalent of the Tea Party in modern day politics.

    Like I said, falling to these ridiculous attacks will do little to help La Sierra. I know quite a few of my friends and I plan to attend non-Adventist colleges as a result of these concerns.




    0
    View Comment
  26. @Angelina: …As he has done so generously at Southern Adventist University with, what is it, four Biology positions open?

    Perhaps this 4-year wait speaks to how far SDA scientists have strayed from Truth, scientific or not. I don’t know, but I choose not to question God’s ways. Not always easy, but liberating for sure.




    0
    View Comment
  27. My understanding is that there were biology faculty who sincerely questioned the literal interpretation of Genesis and others who genuinely accepted it. I also understand that some of the doubters made disrespectful statements. I don’t question these facts; I have it on word from two well-informed colleagues who are biologists within the SDA system that these unfortunate events indeed happened.

    What I’m not clear on is the claim that these faculty lied. One was quoted by the press giving what could only be deemed an honest disclosure of his views. If anything, the biologists should have be more secretive of their views, but instead were openly honest about them. For having those views, and for sharing their doubts, I don’t believe they should be faulted any more so than faculty who share their honoest views on dancing, caffeine or alcohol consumption, abortion, homosexuality, sex on the Sabbath, or other Adventist “hot potatoes.” Seventh-day Adventists have always engaged in discussion of divergent views, and universities in particular are a proper place to engage in these discussions. What the faculty should unquestionably be faulted for is insensitivity and failure to be more accomodating toward those who had divergent views. But that is hardly legal grounds for justifying termination. Bear in mind that the legal issues involved in dismissal of clergy is a very, very different situation than what an academic institution has to contend with.

    The administration, clearly, should have addressed the situation long before things became such a public spectacle. Had the faculty been told to immediately cease and desist any kind of teaching of theistic evolution, and were told that doing so would be a condition of continuing employment, then from that point on they could and should be held accountable. For all we know, that message may well have been communicated to the faculty (which seems highly likely to me), and the errant professors may well have complied.




    0
    View Comment
  28. Sorry. Not sure how to post with a quote.

    Adventist High School Student

    You said, “Those are unsubstantiated accusations. What we had was a largely orchestrated campaign of character assassination against professors at La Sierra by the extreme right-wing element in the church, the equivalent of the Tea Party in modern day politics.Like I said, falling to these ridiculous attacks will do little to help La Sierra. I know quite a few of my friends and I plan to attend non-Adventist colleges as a result of these concerns.”

    My reply:

    Unsubstantiated? What about Louie Bishop? What about Janelle and Jason Shives? To name just three. Do you really think people would be willing to put themselves out there, to suffer criticism and risk being misunderstood, ridiculed and ostracized if it weren’t true? Would you?

    By all means, decide which college is best for you. But, make that decision having fairly considered all the facts. You may not favour the “right-wing element of the church” for a whole host of reasons, but those reasons should not impede your objectivity to the point where you callously choose to disregard real personal testimony.

    Sincerely,
    Angelina




    0
    View Comment
  29. While I agree that the problem isn’t solved with this letter and that the issue still needs to be monitored we must also appreciate this as an excellent first step.

    It may seem a long time in coming but I’d like to point out that it hasn’t been very long since the GC new administration took over. Ted Wilson (GC President) and Lisa Beardsley (GC Dir. of Education) and Dan Jackson (NAD President) are new to this post and became actively involved in this situation as soon as they were appointed by the world church. If they got LSU to reverse its denials and actually directly apologize (Apologies almost never happen in these kinds of cases) then maybe with time and encouragement more changes will take place.

    Take courage! God is still in control!




    0
    View Comment
  30. Angelina,

    The Southern Adventist University situation was a very strange one. I have a lifelong buddie who is an SDA biology professor, and I have recently befriended several others. These are good people–very faithful, very well-informed individuals whom I respect. I was told that a lot of people became very upset last year when Southern interviewed some perfectly acceptable candidates–very “safe” ones–and then rejected them because they lacked a passion for teaching and research specifically on creationism. In one or two cases, the department refused to hire a candidate who stated they could not “prove” creation. How ludicrous is that?!!! I was told that not all of the faculty were happy with the decisions, which resulted in a work overload for all. (I think maybe one or two faculty also put off their retirement; sorry, I’m a bit fuzzy on the facts, as amusing and riveting as they were.) If SAU wants to teach and indoctrinate creationism rather than biology, more power to them. I just hope that their output of future scientists and physicians is not negatively affected.

    I don’t know what became of the rejected candidates, but if I was in their shoes with the current climate of outright hostility, I would not want to apply for any other openings within the Church. Who would want to teach at an institution with constituents who assume a priori you’re an evilutionist, dissect endlessly any statement that could be twisted to mean something sinister, expose to public ridicule on the internet anyone who fails to state “the weight of evidence favors the traditional SDA position” (Sean Pitman’s favored tactic), and send blanket hate mail to every biologist on the staff?

    You don’t think we have a problem finding replacements for all the faculty you want to fire? Pull your head out of the sand! (Okay…the last comment was tongue-in-cheek; I believe you simply fail to grasp the significance of the problem.)




    0
    View Comment
  31. Angelina, upon re-reading, I fear I insulted you with the head-in-the-sand remark. As a biologist, I find amusing images of animals, like the ostrich this idiom is based on, engaged in humorous activities. However, I recognize that I relate to such images in a different manner than others, and I apologize if I offended you.

    Wayne, I appreciate your optimistic take on the matter.

    Shane, there is no such thing as a perfect survey, and I understand your frustration. Response bias is very difficult, and most impossible, to get a handle on. However imperfect the survey may have been, it DID reveal some sobering facts that caught the attention of both LSU and denominational administrators. The fact that LSU has come forward with the findings and openly shared the pointed criticism should be commended. I think it would be easier now for them to be more forthcoming (i.e., “transparent”) rather than defensive if the spotlight glared a little less brightly. What the documents unmistakably reveal is that Church leadership HAS taken a proactive role toward resolving the issues. There is clearly a process in place to straighten out the situation. I hope the process is not derailed by well-meaning people who fan the flames to the point of combustion.




    0
    View Comment
  32. @Professor Kent:

    You said:
    “For having those views, and for sharing their doubts, I don’t believe they should be faulted any more so than faculty who share their honoest views on dancing, caffeine or alcohol consumption, abortion, homosexuality, sex on the Sabbath, or other Adventist “hot potatoes.”

    My reply:
    The faculty did far more than ‘have a view, and share a doubt”. They TAUGHT their views on evolution as the only logical explanation of our origins. It is one thing to HAVE a view, quite another to TEACH it to the exclusion of and in opposition to the one and only Bible-based belief of origins on which the SDA church was founded.

    You said:
    “What the faculty should unquestionably be faulted for is insensitivity and failure to be more accomodating toward those who had divergent views.”

    My reply:
    Divergent views? So now, a view of Creationism as an explanation of origins in an SDA school is considered ‘divergent’? Did I understand that correctly?

    The mere fact that this whole, sad and pathetic saga has gone on for this long is proof enough that incompetence has reigned supreme. Just because La Sierra’s administrators have now sprung into action does not undo decades of misuse of power, and leaving them in office going forward will only serve to fester the current situation of mistrust.

    That said, I was honestly blown away to read they were issuing an apology. Not quite sure yet what the apology is for, but I am hopeful it is a step in the right direction. The next step should be a call for letters of resignation/termination. Yes, back to that, I’m afraid.

    Sincerely,
    Angelina




    0
    View Comment
  33. Angelina,

    Please don’t overinterpret my use of “divergent.” I feel strongly that the faculty must respect core SDA beliefs, including a literal creation (I’m a literal creationist myself!). I was speaking to more than just this one belief. We must be just as respectful, for example, toward those who feel it is a sin to eat meat (though I beg to differ) as those who feel it is acceptable to eat meat. We must also treat with equal respect those who feel that snorkeling on the Sabbath is okay (my personal view) or is a sin.

    Regarding sharing one’s views from the classroom, let me give a personal example. I was at one time a professor at a very conservative Baptist university (and may still be to this day…). Upon hiring, I agreed to a very clear stipulation of behavior (no drinking of alcohol, for example) and was given a brochure on Baptist beliefs for the sake of familiarity, but was told I was not required to accept their beliefs as a condition of employment (perhaps Baptists are more magnaminous than Adventists?). I was never told specifically that I could not share or even teach other beliefs (although I might have volunteered that I would not proselytize from my position–that’s just my style).

    So here are four perfectly legitimate questions:

    1. As a practicing SDA, would it have been okay for me to tell their students (many of which were not Baptist, by the way) that in my personal opinion I thought that Sunday worship was not supported Biblically?

    2. Would it have been okay for me to ridicule the Sunday keepers?

    3. Should I have been fired if I told the students that I personally disagreed with the change in worship to Sunday–even though I was never told my speaking to this would be grounds for termination?

    4. If administrators learned that I was telling students about my personal belief in the seventh-day Sabbath, and told me in no uncertain terms that my employment would be terminated if I did so again while in the classroom, should I be fired if I violated their request?

    Okay, just for fun, here is one more question: if I was a Pepsi employee and someone sent an administrator a photo of me drinking Coke while in my office cubicle, do you believe I should be fired?




    0
    View Comment
  34. @Professor Kent:

    Unfortunately, I am not at all in a position to comment on SAU’s search for biology professors. I can only imagine how hard the task would be for them, and as you have described how frustrating, on the flipside, it would be to be interviewed for such a position. I’m afraid I don’t have answers, even any suggestions (strange because I always have something to say), only that I would leave it in the Lord’s hands. He is my go-to person.

    You said:
    “Who would want to teach at an institution with constituents who assume a priori you’re an evolutionist, dissect endlessly any statement that could be twisted to mean something sinister, expose to public ridicule on the internet anyone who fails to state “the weight of evidence favors the traditional SDA position” (Sean Pitman’s favored tactic), and send blanket hate mail to every biologist on the staff?”

    In all fairness to Sean/Shane, you know that going viral was preceded by their repeated attempts to draw attention to the issue in other ‘quieter’ ways: in person and through letters. Didn’t work, did it? I’ve been on that end with my own battle, and believe me it’s no picnic. Being ignored, or politely listened to THEN ignored when there is a pressing issue at hand, certainly one which involves our youth, or in my instance young children, you don’t have time to sit back and wait hoping something will happen. You act. And, as a parent I am grateful to people like Sean/Shane for their willingness to take a public stand. You may not like their ‘tactics’ and mine were also criticized, but if standing for what is right means ruffling a few feathers resistant to change, then so be it.

    Sincerely,
    Angelina




    0
    View Comment
  35. This so-called “report” is nothing more than a smokecreen to avoid any action. Take simply one statement: “In order to get the most accurate and objective assessment…the group went directly to the source.”

    Unfortunately, the “source” they went to was not the “objective” and easily obtained information which we are discussing on this website, but students’ perceptions about what they thought was taught.

    Why didn’t the “the group” actually to THE source, which is the actual materials taught and used during the Biology classes in question, some of which has been printed on this website?! Then they could all see exactly what was taught and what was not.

    This report by the Board is a total embarrassment.




    0
    View Comment
  36. When NPUC decided to solve the problem at Walla Walla – significant changes were made in the staffing of the WW religion and biology departments.I don’t see anything close to that level of resolve in the Pacific Union.Hopefully I am wrong.in Christ,Bob

    I don’t think you’re wrong, Bob. Nothing in this thing speaks of any signigicant changes at LSU. A few “adjustments” as Graham spoke of last year, but nothing else.




    0
    View Comment
  37. Ron Stone M.D. wrote:

    Why didn’t the “the [sic] group” actually [go] to THE source, which is the actual materials taught and used during the Biology classes in question

    Ron, I wish you were more respectful of church leadership. The confidential memorandum currently posted in another link (which you have already commented on, so you had the opportunity to read it) clearly explains the committee’s rationale: “The Committee gave a great deal of weight to the survey results, because the Committee believes that the best way to determine what is being taught is to examine what is being learned.” I concur and I suspect many others would, as well.

    Furthermore, note that the memorandum also states that “three members of the visiting [AAA] team spent approximately three hours interviewing the entire biology faculty as a group.” Thus, they went directly to “the source” (professors), and concluded that “some biology faculty use evolution to explain creation” and “some faculty seem averse to sharing the position of the church on creation.”

    Personally I’m pleased that the board has expended a considerable amount of time and effort investigating the nature and extent of the allegations. It saddens me that you have dismissed the report as a “smokcreen” [sic] and a “total embarrassment.”




    0
    View Comment
  38. Ron Stone M.D. wrote:Ron, I wish you were more respectful of church leadership.

    I would give more respect to our leadership when and if they start deserving respect. I still don’t see much to “respect” them for when they have almost totally smokescreened the real issues involved. Sure, they have had their “survey” and “interviews” without addressing the underlying issue(s) we have been discussing on this website for well over 1 1/2 years.

    The real reason we have these problems in the first place is that the so-called leadership from Wisbey on up through Graham and the Board have avoided doing their jobs.

    You may think, like some on this website, that the problem is just with a few “rogue” Bio profs. It goes much higher than this. The denial of this fact will certainly perpetuate the problems into eons of time into the future.




    0
    View Comment
  39. Ron Stone M.D., do you seriously believe that publicly criticizing leaders by name is going to help solve the problem? Do you believe it is God’s mission for your life to publicly criticize church leadership? When one of your patients fails to lose weight, do you go online to publicly goad the patient?




    0
    View Comment
  40. Eddie says:
    March 15, 2011 “Ron Stone M.D., do you seriously believe that publicly criticizing leaders by name is going to help solve the problem? Do you believe it is God’s mission for your life to publicly criticize church leadership? When one of your patients fails to lose weight, do you go online to publicly goad the patient?”

    I can’t believe the parallels people use on this forum to equate situations that are vastly different. As for “publicly” exposing individuals, if these individuals are “public” figures, then the answer in some cases is absolutely and positively “yes”. LSU is not a private matter but a public matter that pretains to every church member.

    EGW “publicly” exposed more than a few in certain situations. She said to Kellogg, “I would help you if I could.” She said, “Don’t send your children to Battle Creek.”

    Leaders who do “public” things should be exposed to the public. Just like any politician. Especially when it has been going on and on with no effort being made to resolve the situation.

    A strange sense of reasoning seems to control and guide some people.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  41. Bill,

    In what forum did Ms. White make those statements, and were names included? Why were names consistently removed from her publications, including the compilation of Testimonies?

    Pardon my curiosity.

    PK
    Professor of Christ




    0
    View Comment
  42. When an individual is publicly criticized on this forum, who rejoices more: God or Satan? “Choose you this day whom ye will serve” (Joshua 24:15).

    I have always believed that it is a sin to publicly criticize anybody, even leaders (including politicians). I regret and repent each time I have succumbed to the temptation. As far as I’m concerned, it is breaking the spirit of the 6th commandment. Consequently I cringe every time I see the character of a brother or sister in Christ impugned on this forum, which happens much too frequently. Nobody other than the Holy Spirit will ever convince me that God approves of any of it. And if I am right, who will ultimately be held accountable for what is happening on this forum?

    Isn’t it enough to unambiguously state your position publicly on a subject without resorting to naming specific individuals and casting aspersions on their character? If it is necessary to mention a person’s name, isn’t it enough to simply say you respectfully disagree with the person’s view(s) without resorting to innuendo?

    I am strongly opposed to the teaching of abiogenesis and megaevolution as the truth in any SDA institution. I believe that some employees who have done so should never have been hired in the first place and should no longer be employed by the church, even though some of them are my friends. I have written letters expressing my views to various church leaders, but have never mentioned specific names or criticized the leaders for their failures. I believe I have done my duty. Why should I go beyond this and publicly incriminate individuals by name?




    0
    View Comment
  43. Professor Kent says:
    March 15, 2011 Bill,

    In what forum did Ms. White make those statements, and were names included? Why were names consistently removed from her publications, including the compilation of Testimonies?

    Pardon my curiosity.

    PK
    Professor of Christ

    Obviously, she did not “always” state names in public. But she often did. And even Paul publically rebuked Peter. Our final purpose is to be redemptive in all we do. But we need not patronize blatant error and those who continue to advocate it.

    Modern Adventism is becoming a real “sissy” religion. No personal accountability by leaders of themselves individually, or corporately.

    Everyone hide behind the curtain of obscurity and avoid detection and always be sure to “cover” for the other guy.

    But let me add. Those who refuse to discipline evil, will surely eventually discipline righteousness. You can count on it.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  44. Bill Sorenson said:

    Modern Adventism is becoming a real “sissy” religion. No personal accountability by leaders of themselves individually, or corporately.

    With due respect, I disagree. The church has a formal process for accountability, and it does not include public rebuke on the web and other jihadist-like activities (e.g., punching authors who write for Spectrum).




    0
    View Comment
  45. @Eddie:

    You wrote:

    With due respect, I disagree. The church has a formal process for accountability, and it does not include public rebuke on the web and other jihadist-like activities (e.g., punching authors who write for Spectrum).

    With all due respect, you forget there is a time for public rebuke which has historical precident within our Church. When Battle Creek College began to significantly drift from the goals and ideals of the Church, Mrs. White called out the college and the professors teaching there, in a very public manner, and advised that no one send their children to Battle Creek College.

    During the summer of 1881, Ellen White wrote a testimony regarding the College to be publicly read at the Michigan Conference camp-meeting. Instead, the testimony was read at the even more public venue of the General Conference session in December of that year. Relevant portions of that testimony can be read at my earlier posted quote. (The full message can be found at Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, pp. 21-36.)

    A main concern of Ellen White was the emphasis on the [conclusions of popular scientists] at the expense of the Bible. She showed a special interest in maintaining a clear teaching on creation. “In God’s word alone,” she asserted, “we find an authentic account of creation” (5 Test., 25).

    She displayed a willingness to both publicly rebuke the leadership of the college and to warn church members of the problems at the College. “We can give,” she memorably warned, “no encouragement to parents to send their children to Battle Creek College” (5 Test., 21). She proposed that if the College was not returned to the Biblical-centered model, that the church should “sell it out to worldlings” and “establish another school” upon the “plan which God has specified” (5 Test., 25-26).

    http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/don%E2%80%99t-send-your-children-says-mrs-white/

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  46. When an individual is publicly criticized on this forum, who rejoices more: God or Satan? “Choose you this day whom ye will serve” (Joshua 24:15).I have always believed that it is a sin to publicly criticize anybody, even leaders (including politicians). I regret and repent each time I have succumbed to the temptation. As far as I’m concerned, it is breaking the spirit of the 6th commandment. ?

    [edit] Truth is difficult to take, especially for those who have had their head in the sand for years or decades. But someone has to pull them out eventually. Shane and Sean have done a great job on this one issue, but there are many more to address.




    0
    View Comment
  47. Most SDAs regard Ellen White as a prophet. If she received an inspired message from God to publicly rebuke the college and its professors, who am I to argue with her? However, I seriously doubt anybody reading this forum considers any respondents here to have been divinely inspired to publicly criticize either institutions or individuals.

    I have no problem with publicly pointing out the presence of sin in an institution or among church leaders, as long as it is done honestly, respectfully and constructively, in a manner that does not intentionally inflict undue division and harm to the organized church. However, I strongly feel it is a violation of the spirit of the 6th commandment to publicly do so with individuals, including leaders, regardless of whether the sin is private or public. It’s often referred to as the “golden rule” (Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31).




    0
    View Comment
  48. Bill Sorensen wrote:

    But let me add. Those who refuse to discipline evil, will surely eventually discipline righteousness. You can count on it.

    Good point. This explains why a Geoscience Research Institute scientist gets ridiculed by many Educate Truth readers for upholding Sola Scriptura (the Church-approved historical-grammatical hermeneutic), while the one who dismisses simple trust in God’s word in favor of science, human reason, and empirical evidence (the rejected historical-critical hermeneutic) is lauded the highest praise. The call is given to fire the GRI employee, and to hire at one of our universities the one who undermines the most fundamental of our fundamental beliefs.




    0
    View Comment
  49. @Eddie:

    Most SDAs regard Ellen White as a prophet. If she received an inspired message from God to publicly rebuke the college and its professors, who am I to argue with her? However, I seriously doubt anybody reading this forum considers any respondents here to have been divinely inspired to publicly criticize either institutions or individuals.

    Prophets are not the only ones who can be inspired by God to act in a time of crisis for the Church. If LSU is in a similar situation to what was taking place at Battle Creek College in Mrs. White’s day (and it is), then why shouldn’t it be called out in a similar manner and parents advised not to send their children to LSU in a similar way to that proposed by Mrs. White in her own day?

    I have no problem with publicly pointing out the presence of sin in an institution or among church leaders, as long as it is done honestly, respectfully and constructively, in a manner that does not intentionally inflict undue division and harm to the organized church.

    That’s what we’re doing. We did not undertake this mission without years of trying many other methods to privately address this issue. LSU’s attack on the fundamentals of the SDA Church has been taking place for decades – for over 30 years. I’ve personally been involved with trying to privately check this attack on Church doctrines for almost 10 years. Nothing worked. No private effort achieved anything more than platitudes from either the LSU government or the SDA Church hierarchy. So, finally, after much thought and prayer, this significant problem for the Church was taken to the Church body at large – as per the recommendation of the Bible itself.

    Public sins or rebellion within the Church, if not checked after appropriate private efforts, must eventually be brought before the Church as a body and addressed publicly. Otherwise, the Church body will suffer needlessly and without appropriate warning.

    However, I strongly feel it is a violation of the spirit of the 6th commandment to publicly do so with individuals, including leaders, regardless of whether the sin is private or public. It’s often referred to as the “golden rule” (Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31).

    Individuals who take on a public office of responsibility are responsible for their public actions. If they will not respond to private reprimands, their public actions must be addressed publicly in order to protect and warn the public of their own injury.

    In short, parents and the Church membership at large have an inherent right to know what they are spending their hard earned dollars to have their precious children taught in our own schools. No teacher in our schools has any right to keep what they are teaching our children secret. What they are teaching needs to be public knowledge that is well known and knowable by all. What right does anyone teaching in our schools have to teach my child anything of which I am not aware?

    I’m sorry, but your effort to support the secrecy that has been taking place at LSU is not in line with the God-given rights of parents… a right which far surpassed whatever rights a teacher might have to privacy within the classroom setting…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  50. Sean wrote:

    What they are teaching needs to be public knowledge that is well known and knowable by all.

    So what do you want, a webcam in each classroom–so people can freely learn what others pay tuition dollars for?

    your effort to support the secrecy that has been taking place at LSU

    Excuse me. I have never supported secrecy at LSU. I have repeatedly stated my oposition to megaevolution being taught as the truth at LSU. I even wrote privately to church leaders BEFORE this website ever appeared. I was initially pleased when I first saw this website–until I quickly realized it was being used to attack individuals, including many who have no association with LSU. I have a number of friends who have been slandered here and a few have been so upset they were nearly in tears–and yet nobody ever apologizes.

    It amazes me how often this forum’s “Comment Guidelines” are ignored: “Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated… No belittling of individual members, their character, or their motives.” I remain indignant.




    0
    View Comment
  51. @Eddie:

    What they are teaching needs to be public knowledge that is well known and knowable by all. – Sean Pitman

    So what do you want, a webcam in each classroom–so people can freely learn what others pay tuition dollars for? – Eddie

    Don’t play ignorant here. You know as well as I do that parents have a clear right to know the general outline of what their kids are being taught – to include if their kids at one of our schools are being taught that the SDA position on origins is clearly irrational and part of the “lunatic fringe” of belief systems. Teachers have no right to keep what they are in fact teaching along these lines secret and should expect to be called out in public when they promote such ideas in our classrooms.

    your effort to support the secrecy that has been taking place at LSU – Sean Pitman

    Excuse me. I have never supported secrecy at LSU. I have repeatedly stated my oposition to megaevolution being taught as the truth at LSU. I even wrote privately to church leaders BEFORE this website ever appeared. I was initially pleased when I first saw this website–until I quickly realized it was being used to attack individuals, including many who have no association with LSU. I have a number of friends who have been slandered here and a few have been so upset they were nearly in tears–and yet nobody ever apologizes.

    It amazes me how often this forum’s “Comment Guidelines” are ignored: “Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated… No belittling of individual members, their character, or their motives.” I remain indignant. – Eddie

    It is very difficult for one or two people to monitor as many comments as a website like this receives over a relatively short period of time. We have earnestly tried to make the conversations as civil as possible, but certainly aren’t perfect in this regard. I’m sure someone like yourself would do a much better job.

    However, what I’m questioning with regard to your own comments are your suggestions that at no time should the actions of an individual who is attacking the Church in a classroom forum be addressed in a public manner. I just can’t buy into that argument given the serious nature of what has been taking place at LSU for over 30 years without substantive challenge or correction. I’ve written many private letters and had many private conversations with various parties involved during the past 10 years myself. Taking this issue public isn’t something that Shane, David, or I took lightly. We soberly considered many other options before taking this issue to the Church body at large.

    Of course, mistakes have been made for which we do and have apologized. But, the basic goal and overall presentation of the evidence was presented, I believe, in a very even handed way given the urgency of the situation. Allowing for comments in response to the information presented does not come without risks. We did not and still do not agree with most of the comments that we allow to be posted on this forum. We especially cringe at many of the comments from those posters who claim to be on “our side” and supportive of what we are trying to do, yet who, we feel, inflict the most damage to our cause. Yet, what are we to do? Block all comments with which we don’t agree? We’ve seriously thought about doing that as well… It’s hard to know what to do about comments…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  52. Most SDAs regard Ellen White as a prophet. If she received an inspired message from God to publicly rebuke the college and its professors, who am I to argue with her? However, I seriously doubt anybody reading this forum considers any respondents here to have been divinely inspired to publicly criticize either institutions or individuals.I have no problem with publicly pointing out the presence of sin in an institution or among church leaders, as long as it is done honestly, respectfully and constructively, in a manner that does not intentionally inflict undue division and harm to the organized church. However, I strongly feel it is a violation of the spirit of the 6th commandment to publicly do so with individuals, including leaders, regardless of whether the sin is private or public. It’s often referred to as the “golden rule” (Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31).

    The 6th Commandment has nothing to do with honest, truthful criticism, as Shane, Sean, and others have done on this website. As far as the “Golden Rule” is concerned, if someone in the Church is doing something wrong, that person should expect someone to talk to them about it and discuss the matter.

    However, if we expect those doing the wrong thing to “like” the fact that someone has spoken up, we will be disappointed, as most will simply go into a defensive mode to rationalize what they are doing, as we see at LSU. Why this is done is simple; it very often “works!”

    So, we do not need any “divinely inspired” reason other than we see in God’s Word and Truth.




    0
    View Comment
  53. Sean Pitman wrote

    We especially cringe at many of the comments from those posters who claim to be on “our side” and supportive of what we are trying to do, yet who, we feel, inflict the most damage to our cause.

    Um, could you be more specific? Since you are comfortable calling out names, why don’t you do so now? It would help us to understand who “gets it” and who we need to shrug off.




    0
    View Comment
  54. Sean Pitman wroteUm, could you be more specific? Since you are comfortable calling out names, why don’t you do so now? It would help us to understand who “gets it” and who we need to shrug off.

    Well, Prof, I’m called by Shane the “most” censored and deleted, so I’ll add my name myself. The fallacy of Sean’s argument is that when our “opponents” such as those over at Spectrum actually quote people from this website, they quote….Shane and Sean! Of course, this is done in a way to denigrate and criticize, not only them personally, but this website in general.

    So, for Sean and Shane to say a “so and so” other person is “hurting” their cause is pure baloney!




    0
    View Comment
  55. @Ron Stone M.D.:

    So, for Sean and Shane to say a “so and so” other person is “hurting” their cause is pure baloney!

    The people whose opinion we most care about don’t work for or likely subscribe to Spectrum – let me tell you 😉

    When those on “our side” make needlessly pejorative comments and use vulgar or crude language (as you are prone to do on occasion), it makes people at Spectrum or AdventistToday quite pleased to be able to point such things out…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  56. If church employees are imbibing alcohol as Kent alleges they should be given an opportunity to cease and if they don’t choose to do so should be relieved of their positions. I’m sure I’ve been around a lot longer than Kent and I never heard that sex on Sabbath is a hot button issue. Just another straw man.

    Indeed, there was sufficient time for the profs who were teaching evolution as fact to change their habits; if they did not there should have been a house cleaning and that means dismissal. The fact that LSU, under Ricardo and Wisbey, procrastinated and engaged in spin should be an adequate basis for moving them on as well. How can we ever trust them again?




    0
    View Comment
  57. @Sean Pitman:

    I’m sorry, but your effort to support the secrecy that has been taking place at LSU is not in line with the God-given rights of parents… a right which far surpassed whatever rights a teacher might have to privacy within the classroom setting…

    Amen.

    Art Chadwick
    Professor, SWAU




    0
    View Comment
  58. GMF wrote

    I’m sure I’ve been around a lot longer than Kent and I never heard that sex on Sabbath is a hot button issue. Just another straw man.

    I humbly suggest you read “Adventist Hot Potatoes” by Martin Weber. I hope you would not label pastor Weber a straw man as well.




    0
    View Comment
  59. Dr. Chadwick,

    You are an SDA biologist devoted to exploring issues involving creation and origins. Do you think we need to have science, reason, and empirical evidence to inform us whether the Bible is true? Is Sean correct insisting this to be the case? Is Sean’s position what you folks teach at Southwestern Adventist University?




    0
    View Comment
  60. I know for a fact that Walla Walla is still teaching evolution, as is Avondale College. Their reps proudly told me so at the GC in Atlanta. The letter of apology is encouraging, but it isn’t over until it’s over! God bless everyone that is standing up for God’s truth in these tumultuous times! We must be firm and not waver. If our students decide they no longer believe the Bible account of creation they have plenty of options open to them. They do not need this opportunity at the churches expense.




    0
    View Comment
  61. We’ve been reassured that all our universities teach about evolution, including Southern and Southwestern. We have to teach about it. We just cannot indoctrinate it as the more plausible explanation.

    I think many people see apostacy wherever they look.




    0
    View Comment
  62. LSU’s Feb. 2011 announcement of the AAA’s findings, which included the names of the visiting team’s names, disappeared from LSU’s website just prior to the release of the memorandum and open letter.

    I wonder why Wisbey published the AAA findings, along with the visiting team’s names, and then, without explanation, abruptly pulled the report from LSU’s website when the committee’s memorandum was published.




    0
    View Comment
  63. Pingback: » The Adventist Inquisition, Part 4 – The Academic Integrity and Institutional Autonomy dwnomad

Comments are closed.