@Eddie: You wrote: With due respect, I disagree. The church has …

Comment on LSU Board says ‘we apologize’ by Sean Pitman.

@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
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

LSU Board says ‘we apologize’
@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
www.DetectingDesign.com


LSU Board says ‘we apologize’
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
www.DetectingDesign.com


LSU Board says ‘we apologize’
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
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:

Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.

The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.

God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.

The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.

For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”

That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:

Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.

God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.

“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28

Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.

Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.

This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…

Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Ron:

Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.

Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com